112 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:18.02.2026 THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ...Appellants Vs.

RAM LAL (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LRS AND OTHERS ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present: Mr. I.S. Kingra, Senior DAG, Punjab.

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J. (Oral)

CM-7468-C-2025 This is an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, for condonation of delay of 28 days in filing the present appeal.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, duly supported by an affidavit and in the interest of justice, delay of 28 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

CM is disposed of. CM-7469-C-2025 The present application has been filed under Section 151 CPC for exemption from filing the certified copies of judgment and decree dated

03.09.2022 and 24.01.2025, grounds of appeal dated 01.10.2022.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, duly supported by an affidavit, CM is allowed as prayed for.

RSA-2198-2025

1. The appellants/defendants have preferred the present regular second appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the Courts below, whereby the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff seeking possession of land measuring 1 kanal and 13 marlas, out of a total area of 3 kanals and 14 marlas in Khewat No. 62/58, Khatoni No. 83, Khasra No. 837 (3-14), situated within the revenue limits of Village Thappal, H.B. No. 322, Tehsil Anandpur Sahib, District Rupnagar, was decreed. The decree also granted consequential relief of permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from raising any further construction, superstructure, or carrying out any activity in any manner over any part of the suit land.

2. Briefly stated, the respondent/plaintiff filed the present suit claiming to be one of the co-owners of land measuring 3 kanals and 14 marlas in Khasra No. 837 (3-14), as fully detailed in the plaint. The plaintiff alleged that defendant Nos. 5 and 6 had encroached upon a portion of this land, measuring 1 kanal and 13 marlas, and had constructed a school building thereon. It was further alleged that the defendants were threatening to raise additional construction over the remaining land. A notice under Section 80 CPC was duly served upon the defendants. Defendant No. 5 submitted a reply, which was vague and non-committal, and the encroachment remained unremoved. In view of these circumstances, the respondent/plaintiff instituted the present suit seeking possession and removal of encroachment. Defendant Nos. 1, 3, 4, and 5 contested the suit by filing a joint written statement, denying any encroachment on the plaintiff’s land. They further contended that it was the plaintiff who had encroached upon land belonging to the Gram Panchayat, which had been vacated at the time of demarcation. They alleged that the plaintiff was now attempting, under the guise of the present suit, to encroach upon land belonging to the defendants. Defendant No. 6 filed a separate written statement raising similar contentions. The defence of defendant No. 2 was struck off. Upon examination of the pleadings, the Court framed the necessary issues for trial. After recording evidence from both parties, the learned Civil Judge decreed the suit in favor of the respondent/plaintiff, holding that the defendants had indeed encroached upon the suit land. Thereafter, an appeal was filed by the appellant/State before the learned District Judge, Rupnagar, which was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 24.01.2025, thereby upholding the decree passed by the trial Court.

3. Aggrieved by the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below, the present appeal has been filed. Learned State counsel contended that the learned Courts below erred in recording a finding that the defendants had encroached upon a portion of Khasra No. 837 (3-14). It was submitted that the demarcation reports, marked as Ex. P-2 and P-12, were not proved by any competent revenue official who actually conducted the demarcation. The