IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on :- 02.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement:-09.02.2026 Uploaded on:-12.02.2026 Pathankot Improvement Trust, Pathankot through its Chairman … Appellant Versus Shri Vinod Kumar and others ... Respondents ****

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

Ms. Kavita Arora, Advocate with Ms. Sumayya Khatoon, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Manish Dadwal, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 4.

****

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J .

1. The present Regular Second Appeal (hereinafter referred to as “the RSA”) has been preferred by the appellant–defendant laying challenge to the judgment and decree dated 19.01.1996 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur, whereby the judgment and decree rendered by the learned Trial Court was affirmed in toto. The learned Trial Court, vide judgment and decree dated 23.12.1992 passed by the learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Pathankot, had decreed the suit instituted by the respondent–plaintiff seeking a decree of declaration. The appellant, being aggrieved by the concurrent findings of fact and law recorded by both the Courts below, has approached this Court asserting that the impugned judgments and decrees suffer from material illegality, misappreciation of evidence, and errors apparent on the face of the record, rendering them legally unsustainable and warranting interference in the exercise of second appellate jurisdiction.

2. The facts, as emerging from the pleadings of the parties and necessary for the adjudication of the present controversy, may be briefly stated as follows:-

The plaintiff, Vinod Kumar, instituted the present suit seeking a declaration that he is the lawful owner in possession of one kanal of land comprised in Khasra No. 1551/531, as fully described in the heading of the plaint (hereinafter referred to as “the property in dispute”), and that he is entitled to raise construction thereon. Consequential relief by way of a mandatory injunction was also sought, directing the defendants to sanction the building plan submitted by the plaintiff.

It is the pleaded case of the plaintiff that he purchased the property in dispute from Mohan Lal, son of Shri Mulkha Raj, by means of a registered sale deed dated 06.02.1990, and that mutation in respect thereof was duly sanctioned in his favour. The land in question was originally owned by the Central Government through the Rehabilitation Department and was subsequently transferred to the State Government. Mohan Lal had lawfully acquired the said land from the State Government through an open auction conducted by the Tehsildar Sales on 28.07.1989, and thereafter sold the same to the plaintiff.

After acquiring ownership, the plaintiff submitted a site plan along with a proposed building plan to defendants No. 1 to 3 for sanction. However, the proposed plan was not sanctioned, and the plaintiff was informed vide letter No. 780 dated 13.06.1990 that the Municipality had declined sanction on the ground that defendants No. 4 to 6 had refused to issue a no-dues certificate.

Defendant No. 6 took the stand that the property in dispute was owned by Improvement Trust, Pathankot, and that the Tehsildar Sales had unauthorisedly sold the same in open auction. The plaintiff specifically pleaded that the said claim of defendants No. 4 to 6 was false, baseless, and without any legal justification, as the Improvement Trust had neither ownership nor any right, title, or interest in the property in dispute.

It was further pleaded that defendant No. 3 had applied to the Tehsildar Sales for the issuance of a sale certificate in respect of the property in dispute, but the said application was rejected. The controversy regarding the alleged claim of the Improvement Trust was finally resolved by an order passed by the Deputy Secretary (Rehabilitation) Department, Government of Punjab, which was duly communicated to the Tehsildar Sales, Pathankot.

The Improvement Trust, Pathankot, also challenged the mutation s