IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.-

Reserved on:-24.09.2025 Date of Decision : 29.09.2025

1. RSA-3014-2016 (O&M)

Gursharan Singh and Another ....Appellants VERSUS Punjab Mandi Board and Others ....Respondents

2. RSA-5740-2016 (O&M)

Kamaljit Kaur ....Appellant VERSUS Punjab Mandi Board and Others ....Respondents

3. RSA-5116-2016 (O&M)

Punjab Mandi Board and Another ....Appellants VERSUS State of Punjab and Others ....Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Amit Dhawan and Mr. Gagandeep Singh, Advocates for the appellants (In RSA Nos. 3014 and 5740 of 2016)

Mr. Kulwant Singh, Advocate and Mr. Jatinderjot Singh, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2.

(in RSA Nos. 3014 and 5740 of 2016)

Respondent No.3-Dalbir Kaur has transferred her rights to appellants vide order dated 30.11.2022 (in RSA-3014-2016)

Mr. Akhil Kamra, AAG, Punjab For respondents No.1 and 2 (in RSA-5116-2016)

TRIPTI SAINI MANDEEP PANNU, J.

1. By this common judgment, this Court proposes to decide three Regular Second Appeals, namely, RSA No.3014 of 2016 (Gursharan Singh and another v. Punjab Mandi Board and others), RSA No.5740 of 2016 (Kamaljit Kaur v. Punjab Mandi Board and others) and RSA No.5116 of 2016 (Punjab Mandi Board v. State of Punjab and others). The first two appeals i.e. RSA Nos.3014 and 5740 of 2016 arise out of judgment and decree dated 23.10.2015 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, whereby the appeal filed by the Punjab Mandi Board was allowed and the decree of permanent injunction dated 15.12.2014 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, in favour of Dalbir Kaur was set aside. The third appeal i.e. RSA-5116 of 2016 arises from judgment and decree dated 21.01.2016 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, affirming the judgment dated 13.01.2015 of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, whereby the suit of Punjab Mandi Board for mandatory injunction and permanent injunction was dismissed.

Facts of RSA No.5740 of 2016 and RSA No.3014 of 2016

2. Dalbir Kaur, widow of Mohinder Singh son of Pritam Singh, instituted a suit for permanent injunction restraining the Punjab Mandi Board from interfering in her possession over land measuring 23 kanals 1 marla comprised in Khasra Nos. 41//18, 19, 22/1 and 23/2, situated in village Kuliawal, Tehsil and District Ludhiana. She pleaded that her husband was in possession since Rabi 1976, that he had reclaimed the land, and that civil decrees in his favour dated 29.02.1992 and 31.10.1998 had already declared his rights. Despite this, officials of the Mandi Board attempted to erect steel wires and boundary wall, necessitating the suit. TRIPTI SAINI

3. The defendants, namely Punjab Mandi Board and its officials, contested the suit on the basis that the entire land had already been acquired by notification dated 18.08.1979, award dated 29.10.1982, and had vested in the Government free from encumbrances. They asserted that possession had been taken, compensation paid, and the land subsequently transferred to the Punjab Mandi Board by notification dated 20.12.2007.

4. From the pleadings of the parties, following Issues were framed:

1. Whether plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction as prayed for?

OPP

2. Whether suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD

3. Whether plaintiff has concealed the material facts from the court?

OPD

4. Relief.

5. In order to prove these issues, Dalbir Kaur stepped into the witness box as PW1, produced documents, and examined Advocate Gurkirpal Singh as PW2, who was appointed Local Commissioner. The Local Commissioner visited the spot on 04.04.2014 and proved his report Ex.PW2/A with site plan Ex.PW2/B and Ex.PW2/C showing Dalbir Kaur in possession.

6. The defendants examined DW1 Jasbir Singh, Secretary, Market Committee, who admitted in cross-examination that no compensation had been paid to Mohinder Singh son of Pritam Singh.

7. The learned Civil Ju