IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.-

RSA-1141-2016 (O&M) Reserved on:-04.09.2025 Date of Decision : 08.09.2025 Jai Ram ....Appellant VERSUS Krishna alias Krishna Devi and Others ....Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Mr. Ajay Pal Singh Rehan, Advocate for the appellant.

Ms. Neha Jain, Advocate for Mr. K.S.Dadwal, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Respondents No.2(a) to (c) proceeded ex-parte.

-.-

MANDEEP PANNU,J.

1. Present RSA has been filed by the appellant/plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 19.11.2015 passed by the learned Lower Appellate Court, whereby the judgment and decree dated 19.11.2014 passed by the learned trial Court was set aside and the suit of the appellant/plaintiff was dismissed.

Brief Facts

2. The plaintiff filed a suit for mandatory injunction, seeking a direction to the defendants to remove the obstruction and encroachment made by them by raising illegal construction over the passage site measuring 3’-3” x 19 karams, bearing Khasra No. 363 (0–4), recorded as Gair Mumkin Rasta in the site plan, situated in the area of Village Barrian Kalan, Tehsil and District Hoshiarpur, and detailed in the Jamabandi for the year 2001–2002. The plaintiff also prayed that if any other encroachment was found at the spot on demarcation on either side of the passage, the same may also be ordered to be removed.

3. It was pleaded by the plaintiff that he is a permanent resident of Village Barrian Kalan and is competent to file the suit for removal of encroachment from the common passage in the village. The passage was carved out during consolidation operations and was left for the common use of the inhabitants of the village in the year 1953–54. Since the day of consolidation, the plaintiff and other residents of the village have been using the said passage as an approach to their residential houses.

4. It was further pleaded that the width of the said passage was fixed at two karams, i.e., 11 feet, during the consolidation proceedings, and the same has been used accordingly. No inhabitant of the village has any right or authority to encroach upon any part of the said passage, bearing Khasra No. 363, or any other common property reserved for the common use of the village. However, the defendants, without any right, title, or authority, have illegally and unauthorizedly encroached upon the passage site to the extent of 3’-3” wide, as shown in red in the plan attached with the plaint, and have occupied the same by raising illegal construction. By doing so, they have narrowed down the passage.

5. According to the plaintiff, due to the illegal encroachment raised by the defendants, he cannot bring his tractor-trolley or car to his house. Despite repeated requests made by the plaintiff to the defendants to remove the encroachment, they refused to accede. The plaintiff also approached the Gram Panchayat for intervention, but no action was taken. The plaintiff asserted that the encroachment over the passage by the defendants is illegal and liable to be removed, so as to restore the common passage to its original condition. It was also prayed that in case, on demarcation, any further encroachment is found, the same may also be ordered to be removed to avoid multiplicity of litigation.

6. Upon notice of the suit, defendants No. 1 and 2 appeared and filed their separate written statements, though raising similar pleas. Preliminary objections were taken regarding maintainability of the suit, non-joinder of the Gram Panchayat as a necessary party, and lack of jurisdiction of the civil court.

7. On merits, the defendants denied the allegations of encroachment and asserted that the plaintiff has no document to establish any title or right entitling him to file the suit. It was pleaded that the plaintiff cannot take benefit of assumptions and that without any legal basis, he has no possession over any part of Khasra No. 363. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff had not got any demarcation car