[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sardara Singh vs Gram Panchayat Of Village Bela And Ors on 29 April, 2026
RSA-1804-2019 (O&M) -:1:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(108) RSA-1804-2019 (O&M)
Date of Decision:29.04.2026
SARDARA SINGH
... Appellant
Versus
GRAM PANCHAYAT OF VILLAGE BELA AND ORS
... Respondents
****
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL
Present:- Mr. Balwinder Singh, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. I.S. Kingra, Sr. DAG, Punjab.
****
VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J. (Oral)
1. The present Regular Second Appeal (hereinafter referred to as
"RSA") has been instituted by the appellant-plaintiff assailing the
judgment and decree dated 18.12.2018 passed by the learned Additional
District Judge, Rupnagar, whereby the appeal preferred by the respondent
was allowed and the judgment and decree dated 18.09.2017 rendered by
the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rupnagar was set aside.
2. A concise recital of the material facts reveals that the
appellant-plaintiff instituted a suit for permanent injunction seeking to
restrain the respondent from illegally encroaching upon or dispossessing
him from the peaceful possession of plot No.22, delineated as 'ABCD' in
the site plan annexed with the plaint, measuring 12 marlas 8 sarsahi,
situated within the abadi of village Bela. The claim is founded on the
assertion that the appellant-plaintiff had purchased the suit property from
Jawant Singh vide sale deed dated 15.09.1993, who, in turn, had acquired
the same through an open auction held on 17.09.1964.
2.1. It is further pleaded that prior to the purchase, the property
was duly demarcated on 13.03.1993, and upon execution of the sale deed,
possession was delivered to the appellant-plaintiff, who has since remained
in continuous and peaceful possession thereof. It is also averred that out of
the land so purchased, a portion measuring 14 marlas situated on the
western side was subsequently sold to one Meena Sharma. The cause of
action arose when the defendants allegedly attempted to forcibly dispossess
the plaintiff from the remaining suit property.
3. Upon service of summons, the defendants entered appearance
and filed a written statement, raising preliminary objections regarding the
maintainability of the suit, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, and disputing
the correctness of the site plan. It was further asserted that the suit property
had been demarcated at the instance of the Gram Panchayat, which was
claimed to be the owner in possession thereof.
4. The plaintiff filed a replication, wherein the averments made
in the written statement were specifically denied and those contained in the
plaint were reiterated and affirmed. Upon a comprehensive consideration
of the pleadings and the rival submissions of the parties, the learned trial
Court crystallized the issues in controversy and, for the purpose of a
structured and effective adjudication, framed the following issues for
determination:-
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent
injunction as prayed for? OPP
2. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD
3. Whether the civil Court has got no jurisdiction to try and decide
the present suit ? OPD
4. Whether jurisdiction of civil Court is barred under Punjab Village
Common Land Act ? OPD
5. Whether the suit is barred on account of Provisions of Evacuee
Property Act ? OPD
6. Whether the suit is bad for non-serving of notice under Section 80
of CPC? OPD
7. Whether the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands
and concealed the material facts from the Court? OPD
8. Relief
5. Upon the framing of issues, both parties were afforded full and
adequate opportunity to adduce evidence in support of their respective
claims. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and upon due
appreciation of the material on record, the learned trial Court decreed the
suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 18.09.2017. However,
the said judgment and decree were subsequently set aside by the learned
First Appellate Court. Aggrieved by the reversal of the decree, the
appellant-plaintiff has instituted the present RSA.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable
length and have given my anxious and thoughtful consideration to their
respective submissions, in the light of the pleadings, the evidence adduced
on record, and the findings returned by the Courts below.
7. The learned First Appellate Court has, upon a meticulous
appraisal of the evidence on record, rightly held that the site plan Ex.P9
was neither duly proved nor legally admissible in evidence. The said
document, which constitutes the foundational basis of the appellant-
plaintiff's claim of possession over the portion delineated as 'ABCD', was
merely tendered through the attorney of the plaintiff without examining its
author. Significantly, the site plan itself does not clearly demarcate or
identify any portion marked as 'ABCD', thereby rendering it inherently
unreliable.
7.1. The non-examination of the draftsman, namely Karnail Singh,
who purportedly prepared the site plan, has rightly led the learned First
Appellate Court to draw an adverse inference against the appellant-
plaintiff. Furthermore, the plaintiff himself abstained from entering the
witness box, thereby depriving the Court of direct testimony in support of
his claim.
7.2. The sale deed dated 15.03.1993 (Ex.P1), relied upon by the
plaintiff, pertains to plot No.22 measuring 1 kanal 6 marlas 8 sarsahi;
however, the recitals therein explicitly acknowledge that any portion of
land falling within the road of the PWD-Department would not entitle the
plaintiff to compensation, and such compensation, if any, would accrue to
Sardar Singh. Moreover, Bhupinder Singh (PW-4), the attorney of the
plaintiff, has categorically admitted that no land belonging to the plaintiff
exists between the Bela-Ropar Road and Khasra Nos.180/1 and 180/2,
which stand recorded in the ownership of the Gram Panchayat. This
admission conclusively undermines the claim of the appellant-plaintiff
regarding the existence of the suit property at the asserted location.
8. The learned First Appellate Court has also rightly placed
reliance upon the demarcation report Ex.D1, which stands corroborated by
the testimony of PW-3 Balbir Singh, Lambardar, who admitted the
correctness of the demarcation proceedings and affirmed that no land of the
plaintiff exists between the Bela-Ropar Road and Khasra Nos.180/1 and
180/2 on the northern side.
8.1. It is further evident that the learned trial Court recorded
internally inconsistent findings. While observing in paragraph 12 of its
judgment that the property described in the sale deed Ex.P1 and supporting
documents Ex.P3 to Ex.P5 lacks precise boundaries and cannot be located
with certainty, and further acknowledging that the land of the Gram
Panchayat comprised in Khasra Nos.180/1 and 180/2 directly abuts the
road as per Jamabandi Ex.D5 (2012-13) and demarcation report Ex.D3, the
learned trial Court nonetheless proceeded to decree the suit without any
cogent basis.
8.2. In contrast, the findings recorded by the learned First
Appellate Court are founded upon a correct, comprehensive, and legally
sound appreciation of the pleadings and evidence on record, and do not
suffer from any illegality, perversity, or material irregularity warranting
interference in second appeal. Consequently, the present appeal, being
devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed.
9. In view of the final adjudication of the principal controversy,
all pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand disposed of by
necessary implication. No further orders are required in that regard.
( VIRINDER AGGARWAL)
29.04.2026 JUDGE
Gaurav Sorot
Whether reasoned / speaking? Yes / No
Whether reportable? Yes / No
