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

RSA-2541-2024 (O&M)

Date of Decision : 05.12.2025 Jagdish Kailey ....Appellant VERSUS Balbir Kaur ....Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Mr. Gulzar Mohammad, Advocate for the appellant (through hybrid mode)

-.-

MANDEEP PANNU, J (Oral).

1. Present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the defendant– appellant assailing the judgment and decree dated 29.07.2024 passed by the learned District Judge, Jalandhar in CA-286-2023, whereby the judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar dated 06.05.2023 dismissing the suit of the plaintiff, has been set aside and the suit for permanent and mandatory injunction has been decreed.

Brief facts

2. Plaintiff pleaded that she is owner in possession of house No.14 situated in VPO Wadala and that on the northern side of her house exists a public street about 5 feet wide, used by all villagers since inception. It was alleged that the defendant, owner of the plot shown yellow in the site plan opposite her house, illegally encroached upon the public street by installing a gate from point A to B and by raising construction into the street, thereby blocking access of the plaintiff.

Mandatory injunction for removal of the gate was also sought.

3. Defendant admitted ownership of the yellow-coloured plot and admitted that the house of the plaintiff is opposite his house, but denied any encroachment. He relied upon a compromise dated 24.02.2018.

4. Replication was filed and issues were framed accordingly. Issues framed by the Trial Court are as under:-

1. Whether plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction restraining the defendant from encroaching upon and raising illegal construction over the suit property which is a public street as prayed for? OPP

2. Whether the site plan filed by the plaintiff is incorrect? OPD

3. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD

4. Relief.

Findings of the trial Court

5. The Trial Court dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiff failed to prove encroachment and that the compromise relied upon was misunderstood. It held that the photograph Ex.P2 rather showed compliance by the defendant.

Findings of the Lower Appellate Court

6. The Lower Appellate Court reversed the findings. It relied upon the defendant’s own admissions in the written statement and in his deposition as DW-1 that the gate shown in Ex.P2 was installed in the street, the site plan Ex.P1 is correct, the street ends in front of both houses and nobody can encroach upon it, and he had undertaken earlier not to raise illegal construction in the street. The court held that these admissions along with Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 clearly establish illegal encroachment by the defendant. The compromise relied upon by the defendant also acknowledged existence of the gate. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and mandatory injunction was granted directing removal of the gate.

7. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the learned lower appellate Court, the appellant-defendant has approached this Court for setting aside the same.

Submissions of learned counsel for the appellant

8. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the street in dispute is owned by the Gram Panchayat, and therefore, under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands Act, 1961, only the Collector has jurisdiction to entertain questions relating to encroachment, and the civil court has no jurisdiction. It is submitted that the learned District Judge failed to consider this aspect and the judgment deserves to be set aside.

Findings of this Court

9. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and having perused the record, this Court is of the view that no ground for admission of the present Regular Second Appeal is made out.

10. It is undisputed from the pleadings of both parties that the dispute relates to a public street situated between the house of the plaintiff and the plot of the defendant. The defendant, in his written statement before the trial