IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

1. RSA-4666-2001 (O&M)

Reserved on :- 07.11.2025 Pronounced on:-17.11..2025 Date uploaded on :18.11.2025 Narain Singh (Since Deceased) through his LRs and others … Appellants Versus Bachna Ram and others ... Respondents

2 RSA-4729-2001 (O&M)

Hari Singh (Since Deceased) through his LRs and others … Appellants Versus Bachna Ram and others ... Respondents ****

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Argued by :-

Mr. Avnish Mittal, Advocate with Ms. Ishika Jain, Advocate For the appellants in RSA-4666-2001 Mr. Bhag Singh, Advocate for the appellants in RSA-4729-2001 ****

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J .

1. This composite order shall regulate the adjudication of the above-captioned Regular Second Appeals (here-in-after to be referred as “RSAs”), each of which emanates from an identical matrix of facts and law.

Inasmuch as the parties in both matters are the same, the impugned judgment and decree is are common, and learned counsel for the respective parties have consented to a unified consideration, these appeals are being disposed of conjointly in furtherance of judicial economy, consistency, and procedural efficiency.

2. At the behest of learned counsel for the appellants in both RSAs, the factual matrix for the purposes of this composite order is being culled from RSA-4666-2001, titled Narain Singh (since deceased) through his LRs and Others v. Bachna Ram and Others, as it furnishes the most comprehensive and faithful narrative of the material facts. Since the issues arising in both appeals are identical, the facts delineated therein shall be adopted as the representative factual foundation for adjudication of the present matters.

3. The appellants/defendants in RSA-4666-2001, as well as those in RSA-4729-2001, have instituted the present RSAs impugning the concurrent judgments and decrees rendered by the Courts below and seeking appellate correction of the findings and directions encapsulated therein.

4. A distilled account of the essential facts giving rise to both appeals is set out below. The narrative represents a careful distillation of the circumstances materially relevant to the issues presently before this appellate forum, ensuring that the factual background is presented with both precision and adequate comprehensiveness: -

“The plaintiffs, non-proprietors of backward and scheduled caste communities, claim that 55 kanals 5 marlas of charand land in Village Durala has long been used by villagers, including them, for cattle grazing without fee or obstruction. They challenged the proprietors’ partition of this common land, ordered by the Assistant Collector on 22.04.1991, as illegal and non-binding. They seek annulment of the order and a permanent injunction restraining interference with their continued grazing rights.”

5. Pursuant to service of summons of the civil suits, the defendants appeared and contested the suit in full, filing two sets of written statements one by defendants Nos. 1-4, 12, 17, 25 and 30, and another by defendants Nos. 21, 23 and 24. They challenged the plaintiffs’ locus standi, asserted proprietors’ ownership, justified the partition and resultant possession, and denied the land’s use as grazing ground. Defendants Nos.18 and 20 died during the proceedings where as defendant No.7 was dead before filing of suit; the remaining were proceeded ex-parte.

6. The respondent/plaintiffs filed a replication wherein the material averments of the plaint were reiterated and reaffirmed, while the assertions and defenses raised by the appellants/respondents were specifically traversed. Upon consideration of the pleadings and documents on record, the Civil Court framed the following issues for adjudication, with a view to comprehensively determining the respective claims and defenses arising in the present matter:-

1. Whether the judgement dated 22.4.1991 passed by Assistant Collector

1^st Grade, Ambala vide which he ordered the partition of the land in dispute is wrong, illegal, nu