IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 20.01.2026 The Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority, now Haryana Sheri Vikas Pradhikaran, Sector 12, Faridabad ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Samunder Singh and others ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Abhishek Sindhu, Advocate for Mr. Dhananjay Mittal, Advocate for the appellant.

Ms. Kushaldeep Kaur, and Ms. Sharvi Dadhwal, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2.

******

NIDHI GUPTA, J. CM-4085-C-2023 Prayer in this application filed under Section151 CPC read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act is for condonation of delay of 14 days in refiling the accompanying appeal.

2. Heard.

3. For the reasons mentioned in the application which is duly supported by an affidavit of the applicant/appellant, the same is allowed and delay of 14 days in refiling the appeal is condoned.

Defendant No.1 is in Second Appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below; whereby suit filed by the plaintiffs/respondents No.1 and 2 herein, for declaration, mandatory injunction with consequential relief of permanent injunction, has been decreed by both the Courts below.

2. Brief facts as pleaded in the plaint are that the plaintiffs are owners in possession of land bearing khasra No. 58, Killa No. 21/1 measuring 4 Killas (hereinafter referred to as “suit land”) as described in the plaint as per the Jamabandi records of 1993-1994 and 1988-1989. It was pleaded that the said land has come to the ownership of the plaintiffs by way of ancestral property. Even in the Jamabandi for the year 2003- 2004 and 2008-2009, plaintiffs are shown to be owners in possession of the said land. It was pleaded that the suit land had gone into sehlab/flood, and had therefore, been lying abandoned. In December 2013, plaintiffs had discovered that their land was visible and was cultivable. Accordingly, on 24.12.2013, son of the plaintiff No.1 had visited the land. Whereupon it was discovered that the said land had been encroached by defendant No.7 i.e. Christian Graveyard. When the plaintiffs contacted defendant No.7, he was informed that HUDA, Faridabad and defendants No.1 and 2 had given them contract for construction of boundary wall around the land and levelling of the land for construction of Christian Graveyard. It was alleged that defendants were trying to grab the property of the plaintiffs which had been in their possession for over 100 years as also recorded in the revenue records, which were being maintained by defendants No. 8 and 9 i.e. Tehsildar Ballabgarh and Deputy Commissioner, Faridabad respectively. With these pleadings, present suit was filed on 14.01.2014.

3. Upon notice, defendants No.1 and 2 had appeared and filed joint written statement averring that the suit land had been acquired by the said defendants vide Award No. 14 dated 30.11.1971 for public purpose and possession thereof had been taken. It was stated that part of the suit land had thereafter been allotted to defendant No.7. Moreover, the said defendants had invested huge amount in the suit land. It was further alleged that plaintiffs are trespassers on the suit land as the land already stood acquired by the defendants.

4. Other defendants filed separate written statements.

5. Upon appraisal of the pleadings and the evidence led by the parties, the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridabad had decreed the suit of the plaintiffs for declaration, mandatory and permanent injunction vide judgment and decree dated 05.01.2019. Against the said judgment and decree dated 05.01.2019, three Civil Appeals were filed including Civil Appeal No. 73 dated 04.02.2019 filed by defendants No.1 and 2/appellants. All the three Civil Appeals were dismissed with costs by learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad vide common judgment and decree dated 30.11.2021. Hence, the present second appeal by defendant No.1.

6. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that th