IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 09.02.2026 Naurang Singh ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

State of Haryana and others ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Ravinder Goel, Advocate and Mr. Manoj Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Naveen Kumar Sheoran, A.A.G., Haryana.

******

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

Plaintiff is in Second Appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below; whereby suit filed by the appellant for permanent injunction, has been dismissed with costs by both the Courts below.

2. It was pleaded in the plaint that plaintiff is having 6 shops on the agricultural land/suit property. It was averred that plaintiff was tenant over the said land for the last more than 30 years. As he was having good relations with previous owners, plaintiff had purchased the land from the previous owners vide Sale Deed dated 08.10.2002 for valuable sale consideration of Rs.2,56,000/-. After purchasing the land, plaintiff had constructed the above shops. Mutation No. 172 was sanctioned in favour of the plaintiff with regard to the above land. The road near shops was constructed more than 30 years ago after demarcation; and defendants were having full knowledge about the shops existing on the suit land. When the plaintiff had raised construction of shops, no one including the defendants had ever raised objection. But now defendants No.3 and 4 being the Executive Engineer and Sub Divisional Engineers, PWD, B & R, Ambala Cantt. had visited the shops of the plaintiff and declared that all shops would be demolished. Even a wrong and vague notice was served upon the plaintiff but the same was refused. Plaintiff had requested defendants not to take law into their own hands and not to extend threat to demolish shops, but the defendants did not pay any heed. As such, present suit was filed on 14.05.2005.

3. Upon appraisal of the pleadings and the evidence led by the parties, the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ambala, had dismissed the suit of the plaintiff with costs vide judgment and decree dated 28.03.2011. The Civil Appeal filed by the plaintiff was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ambala vide judgment and decree dated

31.10.2013. Hence, the present second appeal by the plaintiff.

4. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant that the suit land had been purchased by the appellant for valuable sale consideration vide Sale Deed dated 08.10.2002 Ex.P7. However, learned District Courts have ignored the evidence produced by the appellant and have relied upon Demarcation Report produced by the respondents/defendants and observed that the plaintiff has encroached upon the land belonging to the Government which is adjoining to the road. It is submitted that learned District Courts could not have relied upon the said Demarcation Report as it is proved on record that at the time of the demarcation, appellant was not present. Moreover, land mentioned in the Demarcation Report is totally different from the land of the plaintiff, as per the Sale Deed.

5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the defendant/respondents produced on record Ex. D-1 copy of Jamabandi for the year 1998-99 wherein land comprised in 11//8/3/1 and 9/1 has been recorded as Gair Mumkin Sarak which had been constructed some time in 1971-72. On behalf of the defendants Sh Vikas Kumar SDE, PWD, B&R had appeared as DW-1. He has categorically stated that he has not seen the Aks Sajra of the road. He had also stated that the demarcation was not done in his presence. He also stated that on one side berm is 2-3 ft vacant whereas towards the side of the shops berm is 10-12 ft. He could not state as to whether the demarcation of the fields of the plaintiff was done or not. In view of such evidence on record, the finding as recorded is totally perverse and unsustainable.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the other witness prod