##PAGE1##

1

RSA-5005-2013 (O&M)

[109] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

RSA-5005-2013 (O&M)

Reserved on 20.11.2025

Pronounced on 23.12.2025

Uploaded on 23.12.2025

Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced? No

Whether full judgment is pronounced? Yes

Jangir Kaur and others …Appellants

versus

The State of Haryana and others ….Respondents

Coram : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN

Present: Mr. Rajesh Nagpal, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Naveen Singh Panwar, DAG, Haryana.

****

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)

CM-13490-C-2013

[1] For the reasons recorded in the application, this Court is

satisfied that the appellants have made sufficient cause for condonation of

delay of 18 days in filing of the appeal.

[2] Application stands allowed and delay of 18 days in filing of the

appeal is condoned.

RSA-5005-2013 (O&M)

[3] Plaintiffs are in second appeal.

[4] For the convenience, parties hereinafter are referred to by their

original positions in the civil suit, i.e. appellants as the ‘plaintiffs’ and the

respondents as ‘defendants’.

1 of 13

::: Downloaded on - 11-01-2026 15:36:56 :::

2

RSA-5005-2013 (O&M)

[5] Plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration claiming that the plaintiffs

are entitled for possession of land measuring 07 bighas 10 biswas as detailed

out in para No.1 of the plaint.

[6] As per the case of the plaintiffs, a total land measuring 40

bighas was acquired by the Punjab Government for the purpose of

installation of brick-klin for construction of Bhakra canal vide Notification

No.49 dated 26.09.1956. Compensation in respect of total acquired land was

assessed at ₹1206.66. The acquired land included the land owned and

possessed by Bachan Singh, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs. No

compensation was paid to Bachan Singh. Bhakra canal was constructed in

1959. There is no brick-klin in existence at the site for last more than 40

years.

[7] Plaintiffs being LRs of Bachan Singh are entitled to get

possession back. As per the plaintiffs, some of the co-sharers, namely

Gurcharan Singh etc. whose land was acquired along with that of Bachan

Singh filed a suit for possession. The same has been decided in favour of the

land owners by Supreme Court of India and possession of the land has been

restored back to the land owners. Plaintiffs accordingly sought possession

back of the acquired land.

[8] Suit was contested by the defendants.

[9] Acquisition of the land for the purpose of installation of brick-

klin for the construction of Bhakra canal is not disputed. Defendants

however claimed that entire compensation was paid to the original owners.

As per the defendants, plaintiffs have no right, title or interest vested in them

to get the possession of the acquired land back from the defendants.

2 of 13

::: Downloaded on - 11-01-2026 15:36:57 :::

3

RSA-5005-2013 (O&M)

[10] Suit filed by the plaintiffs has been ordered to be dismissed by

the Courts below, holding that the land having been handed over to the

Forest Department, plaintiffs are not entitled to get the possession back in

the absence of Forest Department. The successor department being

necessary party, the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.

[11] Learned counsel for the appellants has assailed the findings

recorded by the Courts below. He submits that the land was acquired by

Land Acquisition Collector. State of Haryana has been impleaded through

him. In view thereof, suit cannot be dismissed for non-impleadment of the

department in possession of the land. On merits, he relies upon decision of

RSA-2330-1995 titled as ‘Gurcharan Singh and others versus Haryana

State through Collector, Hisar and others’ and judgment passed by

Supreme Court of India, upholding the same in Civil Appeal No.5143 of

1997 titled as ‘State of Haryana and others versus Gurcharan Singh and

others’, reported as 2004(12) SCC 540

[12] Per contra, learned State Counsel submits that the issue is

squarely covered by a judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court

in ‘Dalip Singh and others versus State of Haryana and