Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ram Parshand And Ors vs Kanwar And Ors on 17 March, 2025
Author: Alka Sarin
Bench: Alka Sarin
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:035572
108
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
RSA-2975-2018 (O&M)
Reserved on : 19.02.2025
Date of Decision : 17.03.2025
Ram Parshad & Ors ... Appellant(s)
VERSUS
Kanwar & Ors ... Respondent(s)
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present: Mr. Arvind Kumar Yadav, Advocate for the appellants.
ALKA SARIN, J.
CM-7585-C-2018
1. This is an application for condonation of delay of 181 days in
refiling the appeal.
2. For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 181 days in
refiling the appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed off.
RSA-2975-2018
3. The present appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff-
appellants challenging the judgment and decree dated 17.07.2013 passed by
the Trial Court and judgment and decree dated 13.01.2017 passed by the
First Appellate Court.
4. Brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff-
appellants filed the present suit for possession by demolition. It was averred
that the plaintiff-appellants were Biswedars and representatives of Ganga
Bishan Patti of Village Nanglia Ranmokh, Tehsil and District Rewari and
were co-owners in the suit land of Ganga Bishan Patti in Khasra No.87 (gair
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:035572
mumkin kuan) and Khasra No.130 (gair mumkin khal). As per the plaintiff-
appellants on 26.11.2007 the demarcation of the land in Khewat No.78
Khatoni No.86 Rect. No.14 Killa No.27 (0-12), Khasra Nos. 87 (0-18), 130
(0-7), 240 (0-1) was conducted by Rattan Lal, Naib Sadar Kanungo and it
was found that the defendant-respondents had encroached on land measuring
6 marlas in Khasra Nos.87 and 130 and installed a gate about two years back
and constructed a bathroom and tin-shed about 7-8 years back. The plaintiff-
appellants requested the defendant-respondents to remove the encroachment
and hand over its vacant possession to the owners of Ganga Bishan Patti but
they refused. Hence, the suit. In their written statement the defendant-
respondents raised several preliminary objections. It was their stand that the
construction was raised much prior to the consolidation proceedings and no
objection was ever raised by the plaintiff-appellants or any member of
Ganga Bishan Patti at that time. According to the defendant-respondents
they were also co-sharers in Ganga Bishan Patti and had every right to use
the same. The demarcation report was rejected being vague and against the
instructions issued by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana. It was stated
that no part of the suit property had been encroached upon by them and
infact the construction had been raised by them in Khasra Nos.129/1 and 86
which were exclusively owned and possessed by them. Replication was filed
by the plaintiff-appellants controverting the averments made in the written
statement and reiterating those made in the plaint.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the following issues
were framed :
1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for possession of
the land falling in khasra no.87 after removing the
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:035572
construction existing thereon ? OPP
2. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present
form ? OPD
3. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is time barred ?
OPD
4. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus-standi and
cause of action to file the present suit ? OPD
5. Relief.
6. The Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 17.07.2013
dismissed the suit of the plaintiff-appellants. Aggrieved by the decision of
the Trial Court, an appeal was preferred by the plaintiff-appellants which
appeal was dismissed by the First Appellate Court vide judgment and decree
dated 13.01.2017. Hence, the present regular second appeal by the plaintiff-
appellants.
7. The learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant has contended
that both the Courts have erred in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff-
appellants. It is urged that the defendant-respondents had illegally
encroached on the land of Ganga Bishan Patti which fact stood established
by the demarcation report and in view thereof the suit deserved to be
decreed.
8. Heard.
9. In the present case both the Courts have refused to accept the
demarcation report (Ex.PW2/1). The demarcation was got conducted by the
plaintiff-appellants without the intervention of the Court before institution of
the suit and without associating the defendant-respondents. The First
Appellate Court found that "The local commissioner while appearing in the
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:035572
witness box as PW5 admitted that respondent no.1 Kanwar Singh was not
present at the spot at the time of demarcation. No description has been given
by the local commissioner in his report as to how many karams were
measured from the corners of khasra nos.240, 68 and 128 so as to establish
the boundaries of khasra no.87. Even no dimensions of the land comprising
of khasra no.87 alleged to have been encroached upon by respondent no.1
has been given by the local commissioner in his report. Even otherwise the
report is itself vague. It simply states that encroachment has been made upon
6 marlas of land of khasra no.87. The Naib Sadar Kanungo has simply
marked the alleged encroachment upon the copy of Aks-sajra. He has also
failed to show as to how it was determined that the alleged encroachment
fall in khasra no.87. Any such demarcation which has not been conducted in
accordance with the instructions issued by the Financial Commissioner as
contained in Punjab and Haryana High Court Rules and Orders Vol. I
cannot be accepted. Any such report is of no consequences and is liable to
be rejected". No meaningful argument has been addressed to counter the
said finding recorded by the First Appellate Court. Further, before the First
Appellate Court it was accepted on behalf of the plaintiff-appellants that the
alleged encroachment in Khasra No.130 was not by the defendant-
respondents but by Mahabir Singh etc. The construction by the defendant-
respondents was found to have been raised several years ago and without
objection by the plaintiff-appellants. The well in Khasra No.87 is admittedly
not in use since several years. There is nothing to prove that the construction
raised by the defendant-respondents was an encroachment in Khasra No.87.
In the face of the findings recorded by both the fact finding Courts, there is
no scope for any interference by this Court. No cogent and reliable evidence
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:035572
has been highlighted by the counsel for the plaintiff-appellants for this Court
to take a contrary view from the one taken by both the Courts. In view
thereof, no fault can be found with the findings returned by both the Courts
concerned. No other point was argued.
10. In view of the discussion above, no question of law, much less
any substantial question of law, arises in the present case which requires
determination by this Court. The appeal, being devoid of any merit, is
accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.
17.03.2025 ( ALKA SARIN )
Yogesh Sharma JUDGE
NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking
Whether reportable: YES/NO
5 of 5
