Jai Ram v. Krishna Alias Krishna Devi and Ors

IN T

Jai Ram Krishna alias Kr

CORAM : HO

Present: Mr

Ms

Mr

Res MANDEEP PA

1.

Pre judgment and d Court, whereby trial Court was s Brief Facts

2.

to the defendan raising illegal c bearing Khasra situated in the a detailed in the J THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGA -.-

RS

Re Da

VERSUS rishna Devi and Others ON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MAND r. Ajay Pal Singh Rehan, Advoca s. Neha Jain, Advocate for r. K.S.Dadwal, Advocate for resp spondents No.2(a) to (c) proceed -.-

ANNU,J. esent RSA has been filed by decree dated 19.11.2015 passed the judgment and decree dated set aside and the suit of the appe e plaintiff filed a suit for manda nts to remove the obstruction an construction over the passage s No. 363 (0–4), recorded as Ga area of Village Barrian Kalan, T Jamabandi for the year 2001–20

JAB AND HARYANA ARH SA-1141-2016 (O&M) served on:-04.09.2025 ate of Decision : 08.09.2025

....Appellant

....Respondents DEEP PANNU ate for the appellant. pondent No.1. ded ex-parte. the appellant/plaintiff against d by the learned Lower Appel d 19.11.2014 passed by the learn llant/plaintiff was dismissed. atory injunction, seeking a direct nd encroachment made by them site measuring 3'-3" x 19 kara air Mumkin Rasta in the site pl Tehsil and District Hoshiarpur,

¶02The plaintiff also prayed tha

- late ned tion m by ms, lan, and

any other encroa passage, the sam

3.

It w Village Barrian encroachment fr out during con inhabitants of th plaintiff and oth approach to thei

4.

It w two karams, i.e been used accor encroach upon a common proper defendants, with encroached upon plan attached w construction. By

5.

Acc the defendants, repeated reque encroachment, t Panchayat for in encroachment o removed, so as t achment was found at the spot o me may also be ordered to be rem was pleaded by the plaintiff th n Kalan and is competent t from the common passage in th nsolidation operations and was he village in the year 1953–54. her residents of the village have ir residential houses. was further pleaded that the wid ., 11 feet, during the consolidat rdingly. No inhabitant of the vi any part of the said passage, bea rty reserved for the common hout any right, title, or authority n the passage site to the extent o with the plaint, and have occu y doing so, they have narrowed d cording to the plaintiff, due to he cannot bring his tractor-tro sts made by the plaintiff to they refused to accede. The pl ntervention, but no action was ta over the passage by the defen to restore the common passage t

on demarcation on either side of moved. hat he is a permanent resident to file the suit for removal he village. The passage was carv left for the common use of Since the day of consolidation, e been using the said passage as dth of the said passage was fixed tion proceedings, and the same illage has any right or authority aring Khasra No. 363, or any ot use of the village. However, y, have illegally and unauthorize of 3'-3" wide, as shown in red in upied the same by raising ille down the passage. the illegal encroachment raised olley or car to his house. Desp o the defendants to remove laintiff also approached the Gr aken. The plaintiff asserted that ndants is illegal and liable to to its original condition. It was a

- f the t of of ved s an d at has y to ther edly egal d by pite ram be

prayed that in c may also be ord

6.

Up their separate objections were Gram Panchaya

7.

On asserted that the him to file the assumptions and Khasra No. 36 demarcation car to show that Kh

8.

De any part of Kha suit.

9.

Rep suit, defendant however, none o

10.

Fro

¶1bea pla

¶2pra case, on demarcation, any furthe dered to be removed to avoid mul on notice of the suit, defendan written statements, though ra e taken regarding maintainabili at as a necessary party, and lack o n merits, the defendants denied th e plaintiff has no document to e e suit. It was pleaded that the d that without any legal basis, he

¶63It was further pleaded tha rried out from the revenue autho hasra No. 363 was abutting his ho fendant No. 3 specifically plead asra No. 363. In the end, all defe plication was not filed by the pl No. 1 expired and his legal of them appeared to contest the c om the pleadings of the parties, th Whether the defendants have aring Khasra No. 363 to the exte an? OPP Whether the plaintiff is en ayed for? OPP

er encroachment is found, the sa ltiplicity of litigation. nts No. 1 and 2 appeared and fi aising similar pleas. Prelimin ity of the suit, non-joinder of of jurisdiction of the civil court. he allegations of encroachment establish any title or right entitl e plaintiff cannot take benefit e has no possession over any par at the plaintiff had not got orities nor produced any docum ouse or passage. ded that he is not in possession fendants prayed for dismissal of laintiff. During the pendency of l representatives were implead case. he following issues were framed e encroached upon the passage ent of 3'-3" shown in red in the ntitled to mandatory injunction

- ame filed nary and ling t of rt of any ment n of ded; d: site site

3.

¶4per OP

¶5suit

6. OP

7.

8.

11.

Findings of the

12.

appointing the H the Court direc encroachment. T site plan, conclu Kaur (legal repr No. 363. The e (Krishna Devi). demarcation wa

13.

On the defendants h were decided in Whether the suit is not maint Whether the site plan produc r the spot and the site plan prod PD Whether the plaintiff has no t? OPD Whether the suit is bad for PD Whether the Civil Court ha present suit? OPD Relief. e parties led their respective evid e Trial Court e learned trial Court took up Iss Halqa Kanungo as Local Commi cted him to demarcate Khasra The Local Commissioner submit uding that defendant Krishna Dev resentative of defendant No. 1) h encroached area was shown in Krishna Devi herself admitted as conducted and that no objectio n the basis of this report and othe had encroached upon the passag favour of the plaintiff, granting

tainable in the present form? OP ced by the plaintiff is not correc duced by the defendants is corre o cause of action to file the pres r non-joinder of necessary parti as no jurisdiction to try and dec dence. sues No. 1, 2, and 4 together. A issioner by order dated 28.11.20 No. 363 and report the extent tted a detailed report along with vi (defendant No. 2) and Rajwin had indeed encroached upon Kha n green (Rajwinder Kaur) and d during cross-examination that ons were raised at the spot. er evidence, the trial Court held t e in question. Issues No. 1, 2 an mandatory injunction.

- D t as ect? sent ies? cide After 013, t of nder asra red that nd 4

14.

upon M/s India Others, 2008 (1 (Regulation) Ac in the Gram P jurisdiction of th individuals. Issu

15.

Issu

16.

Con to remove the Commissioner. Findings of the

17.

Krishna Devi an Narain, 2010 ( definition of sh jurisdiction to jurisdiction was decreeing the su

18.

Ag Court, the appel notice has been Respondents N

30.04.2018.

e trial court thereafter took up Is an Sulphacid Industries Ltd. an 1) PLR 162, it held that under t ct, 1961 (hereinafter referred to a Panchayat, but since there w he civil court was not barred for ues No. 3 and 7 were decided in ues No. 5 and 6 were also decide nsequently, the suit was decreed e obstruction and encroachm e Lower Appellate Court e Lower Appellate Court allow nd dismissed the plaintiff's suit.

(1) RCR (Civil) 972, it held th amlat deh and only the Collect order removal of encroachme s barred by Section 13-B of th uit. grieved by the judgment and dec llant-plaintiff filed the present R contested only by respondent N o.2(a) to (c) were proceeded

ssues No. 3 and 7 together. Rely nd Another v. Union of India a the Punjab Village Common La as, 'the Act'), Section 13 vests t was no dispute about ownersh r granting injunction against priv favour of the plaintiff. ed in favour of the plaintiff. d, and the defendants were direc ment as reported by the Lo wed the appeal filed by defend Relying upon Jai Prakash v. R hat a public street falls within or under Section 7 of the Act, ent. It was held that civil co he Act, and the trial court erred cree passed by the Lower Appel Regular Second Appeal, which up No.1 – Krishna alias Krishna De against ex-parte vide order da

- ying and ands title hip, vate cted ocal dant Ram has ourt d in late pon evi.

Submissions on

19.

It w correctly apprec lower appellate jurisdiction. It w Panchayat was a required. The o Reliance was pl and Division Be

20.

Lea argued that the t Appellate Court within shamlat d under Section 7 Prakash v. Ram Findings of Thi

21.

I h sole question b entertain a sui encroachment o

22.

It Panchayat and encroachment w whether Section n behalf of the parties was argued that the trial cour ciated the evidence and rejected e court wrongly dismissed th was emphasized that the owne admitted by both parties, and the only dispute was between privat laced on Om Prakash v. Tara C ench judgment Bhagu v. Ram Sa arned counsel for respondent No trial court wrongly held civil jur t rightly held that since the pr deh, the bar of Section 13 applie 7 of the Act to remove encroach m Narayan (2010 (1) RCR (Civil) is Court ave considered the rival submis before this Court is whether t it for mandatory injunction b n a passage admittedly owned by is not disputed that Khasra N recorded as gair mumkin ra was found by the Local Com n 13 of the Act, bars jurisdiction

rt rightly decreed the suit, hav d the objection of jurisdiction. T he suit solely on the ground rship of the passage by the Gr erefore no determination of title w te parties regarding encroachme Chand, 2007 (4) RCR (Civil) 5 arup, 1985 RRR 353. o. 1, the only contesting responde risdiction to try present suit. Low roperty was a public street, fall ed and only the Collector had pow hment. Reliance was placed on l) 972). ssions and perused the record. T the civil court has jurisdiction between private parties regard y the Gram Panchayat. No. 363 is owned by the Gr asta. It is also not disputed t mmissioner. The only question of the Civil Court.

- ving of ram was ent. 597, ent, wer ling wer Jai n to ding ram that

23.

jurisdiction in t vesting of land jurisdiction of t determined by t However, wher private individu Court is not barr rights and to encroachment b

24.

Sha Panchayat, but holds it in trust f or enclose any p dispute arises be admitted, the ju public rights.

25.

In B Court clearly he Panchayat prope Panchayat and a Prakash v. Tar ownership of th encroachment, t e Punjab Village Common La the Collector or revenue author in the Gram Panchayat. Section the Civil Court only in respect o the Collector, such as whether l re title is not in dispute, and t ual has encroached upon commo red. Civil courts are competent t order removal of unauthor y one private party affects the rig amlat deh or common land is it is meant for the common us for the benefit of the community portion of such land. If the Pan etween private individuals where urisdiction of the civil court ca Bhagu v. Ram Sarup (1985 RR eld that Section 13 does not ou erty is involved. The bar applie an individual on questions specif ra Chand (2007 (4) RCR (Ci he Panchayat is admitted and the civil court has jurisdiction.

ands (Regulation) Act. 1961 ve rities to decide disputes relating n 13 of the Act specifically bars of questions that are required to land vests in the Panchayat or n the only controversy is whethe on land, the jurisdiction of the C o issue injunctions to protect pub rized encroachments when su ghts of other individuals. undoubtedly owned by the Gr se of the villagers. The Pancha y. No private person can appropr chayat itself is not a party, and e the ownership of the Panchaya an certainly be invoked to prot RR 353), a Division Bench of t ust jurisdiction in every case wh s only where the lis is between fied in Section 13. Likewise, in O ivil) 597), it was held that wh the only question is removal

- ests g to o be not. er a Civil blic uch ram ayat iate at is tect this here Om hen

26.

misplaced. In th of the plaintiff issue, jurisdictio such controvers the Panchayat. T

27.

Sec encroachments w is not a party, a ample jurisdictio

28.

Th

i) (an rev deh

ii) adm wh juri

iii) tres ess

29.

Thu decreeing the su civil court lacke e reliance of the respondents on hat case, the dispute itself was w or a public street belonging to on was rightly held to be barre sy. Both sides admit that the lan The only question is removal of e ction 7 of the Act empow when the Panchayat seeks his int and the dispute is between priva on. e law is summarised as follows The Punjab Village Comm nd similar state enactments) ves venue authorities to decide di h/common land. However, where the title is mit the land belongs to the Gram hether the defendant has encr isdiction is not ousted. Civil courts are competent spass/encroachment, even if the entially a question of fact and po us, applying the above princip uit. The lower appellate court m ed jurisdiction.

n Jai Prakash v. Ram Narayan whether the land was a private str o the Panchayat. Since title was ed. In the present case, there is nd is a public passage belonging encroachment. wers the Collector to rem tervention. But when the Pancha ate individuals, the Civil Court s :- mon Lands (Regulation) Act, 19 sts jurisdiction in the Collector sputes regarding title of sham s not in dispute (i.e., both par m Panchayat), but the only issu roached or not, the civil cou to grant injunctions in cases land is shamlat land, because i ossession, not of ownership/title. ples, the trial Court was right misdirected itself in holding that

- n is reet s in g to ove ayat has r or mlat rties e is urt's s of it is .

30.

It i this was the on encroachment a own costs. Conclusion

31.

In v judgment and d set aside, and th decreeing the su

32.

Pen

September 08, 2 tripti

Wh

Wh s held that the civil court has ju nly question involved. The defe s per the Local Commissioner's view of the foregoing discussion decree dated 19.11.2015 passed he judgment and decree dated 19 uit are restored. nding application(s), if any, also 2025

(M

hether speaking/non-speaking : Speaki hether reportable : Yes

urisdiction to try the present suit endants are directed to remove report. Parties are left to bear th n, the present RSA is allowed. T by the Lower Appellate Court

9.11.2014 passed by the trial Co stands disposed off. MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE ing

- t, as heir are