Punjab-Haryana High Court
Prem Lata vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 21 November, 2025
Page 1 of 13
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
216
Date of decision: 21.11.2025
RSA-3522-2015(O&M)
1. Smt. Prem Lata
...Appellant(s)
Vs.
State of Haryana & Others
...Respondent(s)
***
RSA-1456-2015(O&M)
2. State of Haryana through Collector Jind, District Jind
...Appellant(s)
Vs.
Smt. Prem Lata & Another
...Respondent(s)
***
RSA-1455-2015(O&M)
3. State of Haryana through Collector Jind, District Jind
...Appellant(s)
Vs.
Smt. Prem Lata
...Respondent(s)
***
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA
Present:- Mr. Mukesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate
for the appellant in RSA-3522-2015,
respondent No.1 in RSA-1456-2015, and
respondent in RSA-1455-2015.
Mr. Naveen Kumar, Addl. AG Haryana.
Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Saksham Kaushik, Advocate
Mr. Devyansh Arora, Advocate
for respondent-Municipal Committee.
***
1 of 13
::: Downloaded on - 22-11-2025 22:14:45 :::
Page 2 of 13
NIDHI GUPTA, J.
RSA-3522-2015
Present second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff laying
challenge to the impugned judgment and decree dated 26.07.2012 passed
by Civil Judge (SD), Jind and judgment and decree dated 18.11.2014 passed
by Additional District Judge, Jind, to the extent to which suit/claim of
damages of plaintiff/appellant has been dismissed and appropriate
damages have not been granted, and thus the claim of damages is liable to
be enhanced.
RSA-1456-2015
Present second appeal has been filed by the defendant against
the judgment and decree dated 18.11.2014 passed by the learned
Additional District Judge, Jind in Civil Appeal No. 133 of 2014 titled as 'Prem
Lata V/s State of Haryana and Others vide which the appeal of the
respondent/plaintiff filed for enhancement of damages has been accepted;
and the damages of ₹75,000/- awarded to the plaintiff vide judgment and
decree dated 26.07.2012 passed in Civil Suit No. 47 of 2010 by the
Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jind have been enhanced to
Rs.1,50,000/- without merit.
RSA-1455-2015
Present second appeal has been filed by the defendant against
the judgment and decree dated 18.11.2014 passed by the learned District
Judge, Jind in Civil Appeal No. 252 of 2014 titled as 'State of Haryana and
another V/s Prem Lata' vide which the appeal of the appellants filed for
2 of 13
setting aside impugned judgment and decree dated 26.07.2012 passed in
Civil Suit No. 47 of 2010 by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jind has
been dismissed.
All the above said 3 appeals are being disposed of by this
common order as they emanate from same impugned judgment and
decree dated 18.11.2014 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Jind;
and judgment and decree dated 26.07.2012 passed by the learned
Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jind; and parties, facts, and issues
involved in all the 3 cases are identical. For the sake of brevity, the parties
are being referred to as per their status before the learned trial Court.
2. The plaintiff had filed the instant Suit stating therein that she
is owner in possession of the house as described in the plaint. It was averred
that defendants No.2 and 3 had laid underground water supply and
sewerage adjoining line pipes the house of the plaintiff and had also laid
underground waste water supply and sewerage pipes. It was alleged that
the said pipes had started leaking and seepage had entered into the
foundations of the house of the plaintiff. Due to this, foundation of the
house was damaged. The plaintiff had to support the roof on wooden studs
to avoid any untoward incident. The condition of the house had started
deteriorating in the month of October 2009. The plaintiff had made
repeated applications to the defendants starting from 30.10.2009. The
defendants had sent some officials to visit the spot but they had not taken
3 of 13
any steps to rectify the errors. A written complaint dated 01.12.2009 was
given by the plaintiff to the Executive Engineer, Public Health, Jind. On this
written complaint, the officials of the Department had come to the spot
with some labour and had claimed to have repaired the leaking pipes and
filled the dug-out portion partly. It was alleged that due to this, the house
could collapse at any time. Accordingly, present Civil Suit for damages had
been filed on 15.03.2010.
3. On appraisal of pleadings and oral & documentary evidence
adduced by the parties, the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division),
Jind had partly decreed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree
dated 26.07.2012 that a "decree for recovery of amount of Rs. 75000/- is
passed in favour of plaintiff against defendants No.1 and 2 for the damage
caused to the house of plaintiff by negligence of the employees of
defendants No.1 and 2. Hence, defendants No.1 and 2 in the interest of
justice are directed by decree of mandatory injunction to pay damage of
Rs.75000/- within 45 days of pronouncement of judgment and in case
payment is not paid within time then plaintiff would be entitled for interest
6% per annum from date of pronouncement of judgment, over the above
amount till, final payment of the decretal amount. ......"
4. Against the said judgment and decree, two Civil Appeals were
filed, the same being: Civil Appeal No.133 of 2014 dated 08.09.2014 titled
as "Smt. Prem Lata Vs. State of Haryana & Others" filed by the plaintiff; and
4 of 13
Civil Appeal No.252 of 2014 dated 08.09.2014 filed by the defendants titled
as "State of Haryana & Another Vs. Smt. Prem Lata". Both the above-said
Civil Appeals were disposed of by the learned Additional District Judge, Jind
vide common judgment dated 18.11.2014 as follows:-
"19. In view of the discussion above, the judgment and decree
dated 26.07.2012 passed by learned court below is modified
and the appeal bearing No. 133 of 2014 filed by
appellant/plaintiff Smt. Prem Lata is allowed in the terms as
indicated above and the suit of appellant/plaintiff is partly
decreed with costs. A decree for recovery of Rs. 1,50,000/- is
passed in favour of the appellant/plaintiff and against the
respondents/defendants no. 1 and 2 for the damage caused to
the house of appellant/plaintiff. The respondents/defendants
no. 1 and 2 are directed by decree of mandatory injunction to
pay damages of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the appellant/plaintiff within
two months from today and in case the payment is not made
within time, then the appellant/plaintiff would be entitled for
interest @ 6% per annum over the abovesaid amount from the
date of pronouncement of judgment till final payment of the
same. The appellant/plaintiff is also directed to make good the
deficiency in court fees, if any, after calculation. Whereas the
appeal bearing No. 252 of 2014 filed by the
respondents/defendants is dismissed with costs. Decree sheet
be drawn accordingly. Copy of this judgment be placed on the
connected file of cross-appeal bearing No. 252 of 2014. File of
learned court below along with copy of judgment of this court
be sent back while appeal files be consigned to the record
room."
5 of 13
5. Hence, present Second Appeals filed by the plaintiff and the
defendants.
6. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the plaintiff
(appellant in RSA-3522-2015), that the plaintiff had duly established on
record that extensive damage had been caused to her house due to the
wrongful laying of the sewerage and water pipes by the defendants, below
the house of the plaintiff. It is submitted that plaintiff had produced into
evidence photographs starting from Ex. P-4 to P-21, which shows the
damage to the floor, walls, foundation etc. The photographs clearly show
that there is massive damage to the house of the plaintiff. The plaintiff had
proved on record that there is damage to the property more than
Rs.4,00,000/-. Respondents cross examined plaintiff as PW-2 but failed to
cross examine her on the point of loss or damage. Not even a suggestion
has been given that there is no loss of Rs.4,00,000/- to the house.
7. It is further submitted that plaintiff had produced Sh. S.P.
Gupta, Retd. Executive Engineer from PWD (B&R) Department and he
assessed the loss to Rs.4,15,156/-. He produced his report in evidence and
proved on record that there is substantial damage to the property.
Respondents while cross examining Sh. S.P. Gupta as PW-1 have failed to
make a suggestion that there is no loss of Rs.4,15,156/-. It is settled law that
the point on which there is no cross examination, the same amounts to
admission of the party.
6 of 13
8. Ld. Counsel further argues that the Courts below have erred
while deciding issue no. 1 and 2 to assess the damage of only Rs. 1,50, 000/-
whereas PW-1 by proving his report Ex. P-1 has assessed the damages of Rs.
4,15,156/-. Even the Local Commissioner Sh. Dharam Pal J.E. has assessed
the damages of the amount of Rs. 2, 70,060/-. The Ld. District Court failed
to consider the fact that the Local Commissioner Sh. Dharam Pal Singh, J. E.,
P. W.D. B&R, Jind was also member of the Joint Committee constituted by
defendant for inspection of the spot and there was no reason and cause to
disbelieve report Ex. P1 and report of Local Commissioner.
9. It is lastly contended that the Ld. courts below have failed to
consider that there is no rebuttal evidence from the side of defendants to
rebut the report Ex. P-1 and report of Local Commissioner and so the
damage should have been assessed in view of the report Ex. P-1 and at least
in view of report of Local Commissioner dt. 25.5.2010 who is a Govt.
employee of Haryana State itself. Thus, Ld. Courts have erred in assessing
the damage only Rs. 1,50,000/- which is very low and inadequate and so
deserves to be enhanced.
10. Per contra, learned State Counsel vehemently opposes the
submissions advanced on behalf of the plaintiff and submits that in passing
the impugned judgments and decrees, the learned Courts below have failed
to take into account the Joint Inspection Report dated 21.12.2009
(Ex.DW1/B), as per which it is reported that no sewerage line had been laid
7 of 13
by the defendant-Public Health Engineering Department, Jind. It is
submitted that therefore, the defendants could not have been held liable
to pay damages to the plaintiff. It is further submitted that the learned
courts below have erred in ignoring the fact that no sewer line is existing in
the street where the disputed house is located. In fact, waste water pipe of
adjoining houses of plaintiff has been found laid without the approval of
defendants and was not in the knowledge of the defendants, as it was
maintained by the neighbor of the plaintiff, which was found leaking at the
time of inspection during excavation conducted by the joint inspection
committee. The waste Pipe was found laid from soakage pit to open drain
maintained by Municipal Committee, Jind by the neighbours of plaintiff
which was found damaged and probably is the cause of damage to the
house of plaintiff. The learned trial and first appellate courts have further
erred in ignoring the fact that along with the disputed house there is surface
open drain which carries Waste water of nearby houses and is maintained
by Municipal Corporation, Jind and the defendants are not responsible for
its maintenance. PVC pipe of sub-standard material was also found laid for
disposing the wastewater of nearby house which was at very shallow depth
from the soakage pit of the neighbor up to surface drain passing along the
house of plaintiff during inspection. Hence the damage to the building was
due to seepage of waste water of private pipe line. In fact the cause of
damage to the house is not the leakage in water supply pipeline rather it is
8 of 13
due to inferior damaged PVC pipe used for discharge of waste water by the
neighbours for which the defendants were not responsible. In this way the
defendants cannot be held responsible for the alleged damage to the house
in question especially when the open drains are maintained by the
Municipal Committee Jind/Performa respondent.
11. Learned counsel accordingly prays that RSA-3522-2015 filed by
the plaintiff be dismissed; and RSA-1456-2015 and RSA-1455-2015 be
allowed.
12. No other argument is made on behalf of the parties.
13. I have heard learned counsel and perused the case file in detail.
I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced on
behalf of both the parties.
14. The position that emerges is that it had been alleged by the
plaintiff that the leakage in the foundation of the house of the plaintiff was
occurring from the underground water supply and sewerage line pipes laid
down by the defendant No.2/Public Health Department, Jind. However,
from the photographs relied upon by the defendants (Ex.DW3/A to
Ex.DW3/L), it was evident that the leakage was not from the water supply
pipeline rather it was from the PVC pipeline installed by the neighbour of
the plaintiff; and it was that leakage which had caused damage to the house
of the plaintiff.
9 of 13
15. To counter the same, the plaintiff has relied upon Expert
Report (Ex.P1). However, even the said Report is insufficient as the author
of the said Report Sh. S.P. Gupta, while appearing as PW1 has clearly
admitted that at the time of assessment of the damage of the house of the
plaintiff for preparation of the Reports (Ex.P1 and Ex.P2), he had not
excavated the internal and external part of the house of the plaintiff. PW1
has further admitted that he did not even got excavated the foundation. In
this circumstance, the determination made by PW1 in reporting that
defendants were responsible for the leakage and the resultant damage to
the house of the plaintiff, is unreliable. PW1 has also admitted in his cross-
examination that in respect of the damage to the house of the plaintiff, he
had enquired from people, on the basis of which, he had opined on the
issue. Clearly therefore, Report (Ex.P1) could not have been relied upon.
16. It has been contended on behalf of the defendants that in
holding the defendants liable for damage, the Courts below have ignored
the Joint Inspection Report dated 21.12.2009 (Ex.DW1/B) (at page 131 of
the LCR). The said Report reads as follows:-
"Joint inspection report of the House of Smt. Prem Lata W/o
Late Sh. Shyam Sunder, R/o H. No. 244/18, Kanungo Street,
near Hari Baba Hari Dass Mandir, Jind on dated 21/12/2009.
The following were present :-
1. Sh. A.K. Bishnoi, Executive Engineer, Public Health Engg.
Division, Jind
10 of 13
2. Sh. V.S. Malik, Executive Engineer, Provincial Division (B&R),
Jind
3. Sh. A.K. Garg, S.D.E., Public Health Engg. Sub Division No. 2
Jind
4. Sh. Dharampal,, Junior Engineer, Provincial Division (B&R),
Jind
5. Sh. Ramphal, Junior Engineer, Public Health Engg. Sub Divn.
No. 2 Jind
This house is situated on mound (Dara) near Safidon Gate Jind
approximately at a height of 30-35 ft. from road level at
Safidon Gate Jind town. Cracks are visible in the walls of the
house towards eastern side of the house. The eastern side of
the house is having street about 10ft. wide. Only water supply
pipeline 80mm i/d of cast iron is visible having lead jointing.
There is no sewer line laid by Public Health Engineering
Department Jind. Along the house there is surface drain. Waste
water of nearby houses found flowing in this drain. PVC pipe of
sub standard material was also found laid for disposing the
waste water of the nearby houses at very low depth from a
soakage pit upto surface drain. Due to damage to pipe, the
flow has blocked and seepage has occurred under the house of
in question. There was no other type of leakage in water supply
pipeline as the pipes joints were perfect. The damage to the
building is due to seepage of waste water in the foundation. As
such the cracks have developed due to following reasons :-
a) The foundation of the house is on filled up ground having
insufficient bearing capacity.
11 of 13
b) The foundation has not been designed structurally to bear
the load due to any reason such as seepage/ earth quakes /
vibrations."
17. A perusal of the abovesaid Report shows that it has been
categorically stated therein that no sewerage pipe has been laid down by
the Public Health Department/defendant No.2; and only water supply
pipeline has been laid by them which is not leaking; and the PVC pipe of
substandard material for disposing waste water of nearby houses had been
damaged due to which there was blockage and seepage under the house
of the plaintiff. As discussed above, the said PVC pipe had been installed by
neighbours of the plaintiff. Thus, from the above facts, it stands established
that no damage to the house of the plaintiff had occurred due to any pipes
laid down by the defendants No.1 and 2. Thus, the plaintiff could not prove
actual damage to her house as alleged in the plaint and the Report (Ex.P1).
18. However, notwithstanding the above position, undisputedly,
the defendants No.1 and 2 are liable for the maintenance of the water
channel. It was in this background that the learned Courts below had held
the defendants liable to pay damages to the plaintiff while relying upon
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.P. Electricity Board Vs. Shail
Kumar 2002(1) Civil Court Cases 685 (SC). Though on the face of it, it would
appear that the defendants are not liable to pay any damages, however,
learned counsel for the defendants has been unable to distinguish the said
judgment before this Court.
12 of 13
19. As regards Report dated 25.05.2010 of the Local Commissioner
by ASDE Dharampal, whereby damages were assessed to the tune of
Rs.2,70,060/-, could not be taken into consideration as the said Report was
neither accepted by the plaintiff; nor was the Local Commissioner
examined as a witness.
20. In view of the above discussion, all the above-said appeals
stand dismissed.
21. Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of.
21.11.2025 (Nidhi Gupta)
Sunena Judge
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
13 of 13
