IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Anil Kumar …Appellant Versus Amrik Singh & Ors.

…Respondents II. RSA No. 4231 of 2025 (O&M)

Parveen Rani …Appellant Versus Amrik Singh & Ors …Respondents Reserved on: 13.02.2026 Pronounced on: 16.02.2026 Pronounced fully/ operative part: Fully CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Argued by:- Mr. Piyush Setia, Advocate For the appellant in RSA 4175 of 2025.

Mr. Rajesh Narang, Advocate and Mr. Abhinav Narang, Advocate For appellant in RSA 4231 of 2025.

Mr. Sandeep Jasuja, Advocate For the respondents.

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

This order shall dispose of two Regular Second Appeals, as both arise out of the same judgment & decree dated 11.09.2025 passed by the learned First Appellate Court, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiffs for recovery of damages/compensation was decreed, after reversing the dismissal recorded by the learned trial Court on 27.07.2023. For the sake of clarity, parties are referred to as per their status before the trial Court.

2. Trial court record called & perused. To avoid confusion, parties shall be referred as per their status before trial court.

3. The admitted factual position is that the plaintiffs purchased agricultural land measuring 66 kanals 18 marlas vide sale deed dated 12.03.2012 and further land measuring 112 kanals vide sale deed No.303 dated 27.08.2012 from their respective vendors. It is equally undisputed that at the time of purchase, the defendants were in possession of the suit land. The grievance of the plaintiffs was that despite having purchased the land for a valuable consideration, they were unable to enjoy possession thereof for several years on account of the defendants’ continued occupation and the pendency of litigation initiated at their instance. Possession was ultimately delivered on 22.01.2018. Alleging that they had been wrongfully deprived of cultivating their agricultural land and had thus suffered financial loss, the plaintiffs instituted the present suit on 19.03.2019 seeking compensation along with interest.

4. The defendants contested the suit primarily on the ground that the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction in view of Sections 14 and 77 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887, the dispute being one relating to occupation of agricultural land and recovery of money for use and occupation thereof. It was further pleaded that even otherwise the claim was barred by limitation as prescribed under Section 77(5) of the Act.

5. Upon framing of issues and appreciation of evidence led by parties, the learned trial Court held that the claim, in substance, was one for compensation for use and occupation of agricultural land by persons in unauthorized possession. Relying upon Section 14 read with Section 77(3), Third Group clause (n) of the Punjab Tenancy Act, it was concluded that such a claim is exclusively triable by the Revenue Court and that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is expressly barred. The trial Court also noticed that the limitation prescribed for such a claim before the Revenue Court is one year and observed that even on that count the claim appeared to be time-barred. Consequently, the suit was dismissed.

6. In appeal, the learned First Appellate Court reversed the aforesaid finding by observing that the plaintiffs were not claiming batai or share in crop but compensation for monetary loss and mental harassment. Holding that Section 77 had been wrongly interpreted by the trial Court, it decreed the suit partly and awarded compensation at the rate of ₹20,000/- per killa with interest @ 6% per annum.

7. Having considered submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, this Court is of the considered view that the approach adopted by the trial Court was in consonance with the statutory scheme and binding precedent, whereas the First Appellate Court misdirected itself in law.

8. Section 14 of the Punjab Tenancy Act makes any person in possession of land without the consent of the landlord liable to pay for the use