IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 11.02.2025 Nirmal Singh and another ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Janga Ram and others ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Munfaid Khan, Advocate for the appellants.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

The defendants No. 1 and 2 are in second appeal before this Court against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below, whereby the suit of the plaintiff/respondents No. 1 and 2 herein, for permanent injunction has been decreed by both the courts below.

2. The brief facts of the case as set out in the plaint are that the suit property is a Gair Mumkin Rasta/Gali measuring 07 Marla comprised in Khewat No.143/136 Khatoni No.236 Khasra No.201(0-7) situated within the revenue estate of village Rattangarh Kakrali, Tehsil Pehowa, District Kurukshetra vide jamabandi for the year 2007-08. The plaintiffs are the permanent residents of village Rattangarh Kakrali and have right to protect the property of Gram Panchayat i.e. rasta vests in defendant No.3 Gram Panchayat Rattangarh Kakrali which is its true owner. Defendants No.1 and 2 are in unauthorized possession over some portion of the suit property as shown in demarcation report dated 09.09.2009 conducted by Revenue Officials. Defendants No.1 and 2 colluded with the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat/ defendant No.3 and are bent upon to encroach upon portion of the suit property by raising construction. Plaintiffs and other inhabitants of the village shall suffer irreparable loss and injury if the defendants are not restrained from encroaching the suit property and from raising construction over it. Plaintiffs requested the defendant No.3 to initiate legal proceedings against defendants No.1 and 2 but to no avail as there is collusion between them. Defendants came on the spot and tried to raise construction but could not succeed due to timely intervention of the plaintiffs and other respectable persons of the locality. Defendants have threatened to raise construction over the suit property. Hence, the suit.

3. Upon notice defendants no.1 and 2 appeared and filed their written statement resisting the suit on multiple grounds by submitting that Balkar Singh and Lal Singh are residents of village Rattangarh Kakrali who have filed a suit under Section 7(2) of P.V.C.L Act before Assistance Collector 1" Grade, Pehowa which is still pending. The Assistant Collector 1" Grade, Pehowa had ordered demarcation on 05.12.2013. On 12.06.2014 Shri Sumer Singh retired Kanoongo demarcated the suit property. It was mentioned in the report that Khasra No.201 is a Rasta which has been encroached by Jagga Ram, Karnail Singh, Nehal Singh and Satbir Singh sons of Musadi. Defendants filed a suit for possession against plaintiff which is still pending. The defendants denied that the disputed land vests in Gram Panchayat. After denying the rest of the averments of the plaint, they prayed for dismissal of the suit. Subsequently, defendants No.2 and 3 were proceeded against exparte before the learned trial Court. No replication was filed.

4. Vide order dated 15.09.2015, following issues were framed:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree for permanent injunction thereby restraining the defendants no.1 and 2 from further encroaching upon the portion of street in question and from raising further construction over the portion of street, forcibly and illegally or in any manner as prayed for ?OPP

2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable? OPD

3. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi and cause of action to file and maintain the present suit? OPD

4. Relief.

5. Upon appraisal of the pleadings and the evidence led by the parties, the learned trial Court decided issue No.1 in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants; issues No. 2 and 3 against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiffs; and accordingly decreed the suit of the respondents/plaintiffs vide judgment and decree dated 11.05.2017. The appea