##PAGE1##

THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Decided on : 21.08.2025 Sohan Lal ...... Appellant Versus State of Haryana and others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL ***

Present: Ms. Gurdeep Kaur, Advocate for Mr. P.K.Ganga, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Shashank Bhandari, Addl. A.G., Haryana for the respondents.

***

VIKRAM AGGARWAL , J (ORAL)

This is plaintiff’s appeal against judgment and decree dated

01.08.2019, passed by the Court of District Judge, Sirsa, dismissing the appeal filed by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 04.12.2018, passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sirsa vide which the suit for possession, filed by the plaintiff, was dismissed.

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

3(i). The plaintiff (Sohan Lal) instituted a suit for possession of land measuring 07 kanals 03 marlas (fully described in the plaint), situated at Village Gusaiana, Tehsil & District Sirsa (hereinafter referred to as ‘the suit land’). The plaintiff also sought use and occupation charges of the suit land.

3(ii). The facts, as set out in the plaint, are that the plaintiff purchased the suit land from the previous owners vide registered sale deed dated 15.06.2001 for a consideration of Rs.4,90,000/-. Mutation was also sanctioned in his favour. In April, 2017, it came to the knowledge of the plaintiff that the suit land which was in his possession was less than the land that he had purchased. On 26.04.2017, he filed an application to Naib Tehsildar, Nathusari Chopta for demarcation of the suit land. Sh. Hari Singh, Retired Kanoongo was appointed to demarcate the said land who with the help of other revenue officials including Halqa Patwari demarcated the suit land on 10.05.2017 and reported in his demarcation report that respondent(s)-PWD (B&R) Department had encroached upon the suit land while constructing the pucca road knowingly and intentionally. Under the circumstances, the suit was instituted.

4. The suit was opposed by the defendants. In the written statement, certain preliminary objections as regards the suit being time barred, locus standi, cause of action, concealment of true and material facts, the suit being bad for mis- joinder and non-joinder of parties etc. were raised. It was averred that the demarcation was conducted in the absence of the defendants and no prior notice was ever served upon them. It was further averred that the road was constructed by the defendants more than 40 years back and at that time the plaintiff was not the owner of the suit land. It was averred that the defendants had not encroached upon the area of the plaintiff. Remaining averments were also denied.

5. From the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of possession as prayed for ? OPP

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

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

4. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is hopelessly time barred ?

OPD

5. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties ? OPD

6. Whether the dispute raised by the plaintiff does not fall within the jurisdiction of this Court ? OPD

7. Whether the plaintiff has concealed true and material facts from this Court ? OPD

8. Relief.

6. Parties led their respective evidence.

7. The trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff and the appeal filed by the plaintiff against the said decision was also dismissed, leading to the filing of the present regular second appeal.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that both Courts erred in dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff. It has been submitted that the demarcation was conducted after issuing notice to the respondents-department. He submits