Punjab-Haryana High Court
Hardeep Singh Now Deceased Through His ... vs Bathinda Development Authority And Anr on 30 January, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:015666
RSA-315-2025 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RSA-315-2025 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 30.01.2025
Hardeep Singh
...... Appellant
Versus
Bathinda Development Authority and another
...... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL
***
Present : Mr. Ram Kumar Chauhan, Advocate
for the appellant.
***
VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J (ORAL)
This is plaintiff's appeal against the judgment and decree dated
04.01.2025, passed by the Court of learned Addl. District Judge, Bathinda,
dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant-plaintiff against the judgment and
decree dated 09.09.2024, passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior
Division), Bathinda, vide which the suit for permanent injunction filed by
the plaintiff, was dismissed.
2. For the sake of convenience and clarity, parties shall be referred
as per their original status.
3. The plaintiff Hardeep Singh (now represented by his legal
representatives i.e. his widow Harwinder Kaur and daughter Romanjeet Kaur
filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant (Bathinda
Development Authority) from interfering in the peaceful possession of the
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:015666
RSA-315-2025 (O&M) 2
plaintiff over MIG Quarter No.633, Bhagu Road, Bathinda (hereinafter
referred to as 'the suit property') and from dispossessing him from his settled
possession except in due course of law. The case set up was that the plaintiff,
being a government employee and working as a peon was residing in the suit
property for more than four years. He claimed that his identity card, gas
connection documents and other documents contained the address of the suit
property. On 16.07.2022, the officials of the defendant came to the spot and
asked him to vacate the suit property. As per the plaintiff, the action was
initiated without issuance of any notice etc. The plaintiff claimed that he
cannot be forcibly evicted from the suit property which he is in settled
possession of.
4. The suit was resisted by the defendant. The stand taken was that
the suit property had been sold by way of auction to one Harpreet Singh son
of Jodha Singh on 21.12.2012. After deposit of 25% of the total sale
consideration of `8,33,000/-, allotment letter dated 01.03.2013 was issued
and possession was also delivered to Harpreet Singh. However, the auction
purchaser was unable to make the payment of due installments and
accordingly submitted a request vide communication dated 09.09.2014 to
surrender the possession of the suit property. Accordingly, a sum of
`3,47,593/- was refunded to him. However, the plaintiff forcibly entered the
suit property by breaking its locks. When the defendant acquired knowledge
of the same, they called upon the plaintiff to vacate the suit property but
instead of vacating the same, he filed a suit. It was averred that action was
being initiated against the plaintiff under the provisions of The Punjab
Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995 (hereinafter
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:015666
RSA-315-2025 (O&M) 3
referred to as 'the 1995 Act'). It was averred that, being the true owner, no
injunction could be issued against the defendant.
5. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were
framed:-
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of permanent
injunction, as prayed for ? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action or locus
standi to file the present suit ? OPD
3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present
form ? OPD
4. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his own act and
conduct to file the present suit ? OPD
5. Whether the suit of plaintiff is false, baseless and
vexatious to the knowledge of the plaintiff ? OPD
6. Whether the plaintiff has not come to the Court with
clean hands ? OPD
7. Relief.
6. Parties led their respective evidence.
7. The trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff and the appeal
filed against the said decision was also dismissed, leading to the filing of the
present regular second appeal.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that both the Courts have
erred in non-suiting the plaintiff. He submits that even a trespasser cannot be
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:015666
RSA-315-2025 (O&M) 4
forcibly evicted and being in settled possession, the only way to evict the
plaintiff would be to proceed in accordance with law. Learned counsel
submits that even against the true owner i.e. the defendant, injunction could
have been issued but the Courts mis-construed the settled position of law and
erroneously non-suited the plaintiff. In support of his contentions, learned
counsel has placed reliance upon the judgments of Supreme Court of India in
Rame Gowda (Dead) by Lrs. versus M. Varadappa Naidu (Dead) by Lrs.
AIR 2004 Supreme Court 4609 and Walter Louis Franklin (dead) through
LRs. Versus George Singh (dead) through LRs. 1997 (2) RCR (Civil) 41.
10. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and having
perused the paper book, I find the submissions made by learned counsel to be
devoid of merit. In the first place, the plaintiff was not able to prove that he
was in settled possession of the suit property. Despite repeated queries even
in the Court today, learned counsel could not state as to under what capacity,
the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property and since when. It is the
categoric case of the defendant that the plaintiff had broken open the locks of
the suit property and had gained forcible access to the same. In the
considered opinion of this Court, such a person would deserve no relief. No
doubt, it is settled law that even a trespasser in settled possession cannot be
evicted except in due course of law. However, to claim the said relief, the
plaintiff would have to prove that he was in settled possession of the suit
property. In the considered opinion of this Court, the plaintiff miserably
failed to do so and mere production of a copy of gas connection etc. would
not prove settled possession. No electricity bills etc. were produced to show
as to since when, the plaintiff was in possession and in what capacity.
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:015666
RSA-315-2025 (O&M) 5
11. The photographs etc. produced by the plaintiff were rightly
discarded by the Courts stating that they had not been proved in accordance
with law. It is shocking that a peon working with a government department
is in forcible occupation of a Government property and seeks an injunction
against a Government Agency. If this was to be accepted, it would result in
total chaos, indiscipline and lawlessness. In the case of Prem Ji Ratansey
Shah and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., (1994) 5 SCC 547, the Supreme
Court of India had categorically held that no injunction could be issued
against the true owner especially where the possession of the person seeking
injunction was unlawful. In the case of Rame Gowda (Dead) by Lrs. versus
M. Varadappa Naidu (Dead) by Lrs. (supra), the Supreme Court held as
under:-
"9.The "settled possession" must be (i) effective, (ii)
undisturbed, and (iii) to the knowledge of the owner or
without any attempt at concealment by the trespasser.
The phrase "settled possession" does not carry any
special charm or magic in it; nor is it a ritualistic
formula which can be confined in a straitjacket. An
occupation of the property by a person as an agent or a
servant acting at the instance of the owner will not
amount to actual physical possession."
12. It is, therefore, clear that neither the plaintiff could prove that he
was in settled possession nor did he lead any evidence to prove as to how he
had come into possession. Under the circumstances, no injunction could
have been issued in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant who,
even as per the stand taken, had initiated proceedings under the 1995 Act.
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:015666
RSA-315-2025 (O&M) 6
13. I have gone through the judgments relied upon by learned
counsel for the plaintiff. The first judgment is in the case of Rame Gowda
(Dead) by Lrs. versus M. Varadappa Naidu (Dead) by Lrs. (supra) itself
which has been discussed above. The Supreme Court of India categorically
held that it is the settled possession which would entitle the plaintiff to
protect his possession. Reference in the judgment was also made to the
judgment in the case of Munshi Ram and Ors. Vs. Delhi Administration
(1968) 2 SCR 455 and other celebrated judgments on the subject. The
essence of all the judgments is that a trespasser to claim protection, should be
in settled possession. In the case of Walter Louis Franklin (dead) through
LRs. Versus George Singh (dead) through Lrs (supra), the Supreme Court of
India held that a person in possession of immovable property is entitled to
injunction even against the true owner. Again, the issue which would be
significant is the question of how possession was obtained and whether it was
settled possession or not. The judgment would, therefore, not come to the aid
of the appellant.
In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the present appeal and
the same is accordingly dismissed.
(VIKRAM AGGARWAL)
JUDGE
30.01.2025
mamta
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
6 of 6
