IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 08.12.2025 KARAM CHAND …Appellant Versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL Present:- Mr. N.S. Kandhola, Advocate for the appellant.

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J.

1. This is plaintiff’s appeal against the judgment and decree dated 14.05.2024 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Patiala, dismissing the appeal against the judgment and decree dated 28.10.2021 passed by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rajpura, whereby the suit of the plaintiff for declaration and permanent injunction, was dismissed.

2. For the sake of convenience and clarity, parties shall be referred to as per their original status.

3. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he was owner of gair mumkin land measuring 22 Kanals 4 Marlas comprised in Khewat No.173/165 Khatauni No.200 Khasra no.41//1/4(22-4) situated in Village Fatehpur Garhi, Tehsil Rajpura District Patiala (hereinafter referred to as `the suit land’) and that entry in the name of Public Works Department (for short `the PWD’) in the column of cultivation was illegal, null and void. A decree for permanent injunction was also sought restraining the defendants from interfering in any manner in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit land and further restraining them from raising any type of construction over the said land.

4. It was averred that the plaintiff was owner of the suit land and a drain was constructed over the said land by the Irrigation Department Punjab without giving the plaintiff any compensation. It was further claimed that the entries in the column of cultivation of the suit land in revenue record were wrongly entered in the name of PWD and the same were liable to be corrected. It was further claimed that numerous requests made by the plaintiffs to the defendants to correct the said entries did not yield any result. It was also claimed that the plaintiff had also requested the defendants to disclose as to how much land had been utilized for the drain and to also disclose whether any compensation was awarded in lieu of the acquisition of the land for construction of the drain, but no response was received. It was also claimed that no compensation was paid to the plaintiff in lieu of the acquisition of the suit land.

5. The suit was contested by the defendants. In the written statement filed by defendants No.1 and 4, preliminary objections regarding the plaintiff not having approached the Court with clean hands and having suppressed material facts from the Court, were taken. It was further stated that a natural ‘Nallah’ had been flowing in the fields of the plaintiff for the last six decades and the Department had constructed a “Dhikansu Nala Diversion Bund & Drain” after acquiring the land vide Notification No.28 dated 26.07.1952 under Section 3 of the Patiala Land Acquisition Act and vide Declaration No.34 dated 08.08.1952 under Section 6 of the said Act. It was also pointed out that prior to the filing of the civil suit, no legal notice as mandated under Section 80 CPC, was served upon the defendants and, therefore, the plaint was liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Still further, it was pleaded that the State had been owner of the suit property since 1952-53 and the suit was hopelessly time barred. On merits, it was submitted that the plaintiff was not the owner of the suit land and at the time of acquisition of the land for the purposes of construction of the drain, suitable compensation was paid to the land owner(s). It was further pointed out that in the column of ownership of the Jamabandi for the year 1962-63, ownership of Araji Matruqa Mahjareen had been recorded and the PWD was shown to be in cultivation thereof, whereas Radhu Ram was shown as a temporary allottee (in respect of Khasra No. 81(4-0). It was further pleaded that since the year 1952, the State Government had been the owner