Punjab-Haryana High Court
Chandu Lal Thru Lrs vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 11 November, 2025
Author: Alka Sarin
Bench: Alka Sarin
114
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
RSA-2232-2022 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 11.11.2025
CHANDU LAL (SINCE DECEASED) THR LRS .... Appellants
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS .... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Mr. R.K. Hooda, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. S.K. Panwar, Addl. AG Haryana for the respondents.
ALKA SARIN, J. (ORAL)
1. The present regular second appeal has been preferred by the
plaintiff-appellants challenging the concurrent findings returned by the Trial
Court vide judgment and decree dated 03.02.2020 and by the First Appellate
Court vide judgment and decree dated 02.09.2021.
2. Brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff-
appellants herein filed a suit for declaration that the Order No.35 to 39/LFA
dated 09.01.2020 and the order bearing Memo No.49 dated 09.03.2017 were
illegal, null and void and without jurisdiction which have been passed by
defendant-respondent No.2 herein on the report Memo No.814/ST dated
19.12.2016 sent by S.D.O Civil Panipat, which was also null and void and not
binding upon the rights of the plaintiff-appellants. Relief of permanent
injunction was also sought. It was averred in the plaint that one Bishan Swarup
Colony was constructed over Khasra Nos.1108, 1109, 1110, 1111, 1112 etc.
RSA-2232-2022 (O&M) -2-
situated at Taraf Insar, Panipat. However, Atma Ram son of Chandu Lal was
in continuous possession as Gair Marusi on the land comprising in Khasra
Nos.1109 and 1110 total measuring 540 square yards who had constructed a
residential house thereon in the year 1985. Hence, Atma Ram was legally in
possession over the said plot and house constructed thereon. It was further
averred that the plaintiff-appellants were neither the owners nor in possession
of any residential house situated in Bishan Swarup Colony, Panipat. But for
purposes of maligning the prestige and respect of the plaintiff-appellants,
some mischievous persons of Welfare Society, which was not registered,
made a false complaint dated 16.11.2016 to the Deputy Commissioner Panipat
for removing the unauthorized possession over the land of park and street
situated in Bishan Swarup Colony, Panipat. It was further the case that one
Sh. Balwan Singh neighbour of the house of Atma Ram received information
through RTI bearing Memo No.SPIO/RTI/2078 dated 16.11.2017 that Bishan
Swarup Colony has no approved T.P. Scheme and there is no park or green
belt in these khasra numbers and further there is no approved layout plan. It
was further the case that under political pressure, the SDM Panipat made a
false report against the plaintiff-appellants to the defendant-respondent No.2
and the District Magistrate Panipat/defendant-respondent No.2 passed the
impugned Order No.35/39/LFA dated 09.01.2017. It was further averred in
the plaint that Atma Ram i.e. the son of Chandu Lal had already filed CWP
No.12335 of 2017 titled "Atma Ram vs State of Haryana & others".
3. The defendant-respondents filed their written statement raising
preliminary objections qua bar of jurisdiction under Section 14 of the Haryana
RSA-2232-2022 (O&M) -3-
Evacuee Properties (Management and Disposal) Act, 2008. On merits it was
averred that as per the jamabandi for the year 2003-04, the ownership of
Khasra No.1109-1110-1111 Patti Insar, Panipat is of Central Government and
the ownership of Khasra No.1108 is of Smt. Krishan Vanti and other persons.
The Deputy Commissioner, Panipat passed the order to remove the
unauthorized encroachment of the disputed land vide Memo No.35-39/LFA
dated 09.01.2017 as per enquiry report which was conducted by the Sub-
Divisional Magistrate, Panipat and Tehsildar Panipat. In compliance thereof
the unauthorized encroachment was removed and the dismantled wall was
reconstructed by the members of the society. It was further the case that in
compliance of the orders of this Court dated 01.06.2017 the application of
request for purchase of land in his possession was allowed vide order dated
23.02.2018 with the condition that the matter regarding transfer of plot under
his possession will be considered as per policy of the Government at the time
of transfer of land. It was further the case set up that the plaintiff-appellants
had filed an application before the Deputy Commissioner, Panipat and the
same was forwarded to the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Panipat vide
Memo No.1344/LFA dated 13.11.2017 and no enquiry report was received
from the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Panipat. Rest of the contents of
the plaint were denied.
4. Replication was not filed. On the basis of the pleadings of the
parties the following issues were framed :
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the suit for
declaration as prayed for ? OPP
RSA-2232-2022 (O&M) -4-
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the consequential
relief of permanent injunction as prayed for ? OPP
3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable
? OPD
4. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file
and maintain the present suit ? OPD
5. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is time barred ?
OPD
6. Relief.
5. The Trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree
dated 03.02.2020. Aggrieved by the same an appeal was preferred by the
plaintiff-appellants before the First Appellate Court which appeal was also
dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 02.09.2021. Hence, the present
regular second appeal by the plaintiff-appellants.
6. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellants would contend that
the plaintiff-appellants are neither the owners nor in possession of the suit
property and that it is Atma Ram son of Chandu Lal who is in continuous
possession of the suit property and he has also constructed a residential house
thereupon. It is further the contention of the learned counsel that the notice
had been issued to him on the asking of some mischievous persons.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the defendant-respondents
would contend that the notice (Ex.P1) was addressed to the general public and
was not a specific order. It is further urged that Atma Ram son of Chandu Lal
was issued a show cause notice for removal of the encroachment which was
RSA-2232-2022 (O&M) -5-
challenged before this Court by filing a writ petition. The said writ petition
was disposed off with the direction to the Tehsildar concerned to pass a
detailed order after considering the reply given by Atma Ram.
8. Heard.
9. In the present case, the notice (Ex.P1) was issued to the general
public and is not a specific order for removal of any encroachment. Even
otherwise the admitted case of the plaintiff-appellants is that they are neither
the owners nor in possession of the suit property. Once the plaintiff-appellants
are neither the owners nor in possession of the suit property, it fails to reason
as to why the present suit was filed. As per the plaintiff, namely, Chandu Lal,
his son, namely, Atma Ram is in possession of the suit property, and he has
constructed a house thereupon. A show cause notice was issued for removal
of the encroachment which was challenged in this Court by filing a writ
petition. The writ petition was disposed of with the direction to the Tehsildar
to pass a detailed order after considering the reply given by Atam Ram.
Thereafter, the Tehsildar withdrew the show cause notice dated 08.05.2017
issued to Atma Ram and a detailed order was passed on 23.02.2018 wherein
it was observed that Atma Ram was entitled to purchase the house in dispute
as per the terms and instructions of the Policy under the scheme of the
Government. It was observed by the First Appellate Court that Joginder Singh
Kanungo who had appeared on behalf of the defendant-respondents had
disclosed that Atma Ram had filed an application on 21.07.2011 for allotment
of house in question to him and his application was considered in view of the
scheme of Policy of the Government and he was allotted the house after
RSA-2232-2022 (O&M) -6-
receiving the payment. It has further been observed that Atma Ram had now
become the owner and in possession of the suit property. In view of the above,
and in view of the fact that it is the case of the plaintiff-appellants themselves
that they have no concern with the suit property, coupled with the fact that it
is observed by the First Appellate Court that the house in question has now
been allotted to the son of Chandu Lal, no fault can be found with the
impugned judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts concerned.
10. No question of law, much less any substantial question of law,
arises in the present regular second appeal. This Court does not find any
ground to interfere with the findings of facts recorded by both the Courts
concerned. In view thereof, the present regular second appeal being devoid of
any merit is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand
disposed off.
11.11.2025 (ALKA SARIN)
Aman Jain JUDGE
NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking
Whether reportable: Yes/No
