Zile Singh Sine Deceased Through Legal Representatives v. State of Haryana and Others

IN T

Zile Singh (sinc State of Haryana

CORAM : HO

Present: Mr MANDEEP PA

1.

plaintiffs agains dated 14.02.201 Civil Suit No.2 passed by the le 126-2018, wher injunction has b Brief Facts

2.

Bri claimed himself kanals 3 marlas District Jhajjar. Rectangle No.2 The plaintiff ple time of consolid THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGA -.-

RS Da ce deceased) through LRs

VERSUS a and Others

ON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MAN r. Ramesh Hooda, Advocate for t -.-

ANNU, J (Oral). e present regular second appeal st the respondents–defendants ch 18 passed by the learned Civil 246/2012, as well as the judgm earned Additional District Judg reby the suit filed by the plaint been dismissed and the appeal the iefly stated, the facts of the cas f to be owner in possession o s situated within the revenue est Out of the said land, land measu 28, Killa No.21/1 (1-14) is the eaded that he was owner in po dation and had inherited the same

JAB AND HARYANA ARH SA-2900-2024 (O&M) ate of Decision : 22.12.2025

....Appellants

....Respondents NDEEP PANNU the appellants. l has been filed by the appellan hallenging the judgment and dec Judge (Senior Division), Jhajjar ment and decree dated 31.08.20 ge, Jhajjar in Civil Appeal No.C tiffs for permanent and mandat ereagainst has also been rejected se are that the plaintiff Zile Sin of agricultural land measuring tate of village Dighal, Tehsil B uring 1 kanal 1 marla comprised subject matter of the present s ssession of the said land since e from his forefathers.

nts– cree r in CA-tory d. ngh Beri, d in

3.

It w was announced land measuring amounting to R remaining land person had any r

4.

Acc the acquired lan such report, Far Revenue Office notices dated 26 him to deposit t that the said Far and void, having hearing to him consolidation re

5.

On permanent injun and from aliena defendants to ca compensation am

6.

Defendants no.1 belong to the p Defendant no.4 was averred that in the year 20 for acquisition of land for Dig 1 kanal 1 marla out of the suit la s.2,35,265/- was paid to the plai continued to be owned and po right, title or interest therein. cording to the plaintiff, subsequ nd did not fall in the ownership rad Badar No.60 dated 12.12.2 er, whereby revenue entries w

6.03.2012 and 17.04.2012 were the compensation amount earlier rad Badar and the notices issued g been passed without issuing an and that the Circle Revenue O ecord under the garb of correction n these averments, the plaintif nction restraining the defendants ating the suit land, along with a ancel Farad Badar No.60 and re mount from him. e defendants contested the su 1 to 3 took the stand that the lan laintiff and that the compensati and his legal representatives cla

006, Award No.7 dated 18.05.20 ghal Link Drain, pursuant to wh and was acquired and compensat intiff. The plaintiff asserted that ossessed by him and that no ot uently defendant no.3 reported t of the plaintiff and on the basis 2011 was sanctioned by the Cir were altered. Consequent there issued to the plaintiff calling up r paid to him. The plaintiff plea d pursuant thereto were illegal, n ny notice or granting opportunity Officer had no authority to chan n. ff filed the present suit seek s from interfering in his possess mandatory injunction directing estraining them from recovering uit by filing written stateme nd acquired in the year 2006 did ion had been wrongly paid to h aimed ownership over the acqui

hich ther that s of rcle eto, pon ded null y of nge king sion nts. not him.

land and assert erroneous reven

6.

Fro

¶1ma

2.

7.

Th support of their Findings of The

8.

evidence and do that the plaintiff land comprised the plaintiff had marla pursuant documentary ev defendant no.4 clerical error in jamabandis, mo correction carrie entry and did no that the plaintif acquired land, h suit to restrain r overwritings in advantage of a ted that Farad Badar No.60 w nue entries. om the pleadings of the parties, th Whether the plaintiff is enti andatory injunction as prayed for Relief. e parties have led both ora r pleadings. e Trial Court e learned trial Court, upon ap ocumentary record, decided Issue f failed to prove his ownership a in Rectangle No.228, Killa No.2 d received compensation for acqu t to Award No.7 dated 18.0 vidence clearly established that and that the plaintiff's name h the revenue entries. The trial Co rtgage documents and official c ed out by the revenue authoritie ot amount to alteration of conso ff, despite having knowledge t had wrongfully received compen recovery of the same. The Court n the revenue record and held wrong entry. Consequently, the

was validly sanctioned to corr he following issues were framed itled to a decree of declaration r? l and documentary evidence ppreciation of the pleadings, o e No.1 against the plaintiff and h and lawful entitlement over the 21/1. The Court found that althou uisition of land measuring 1 kana

05.2006, the revenue record the said land actually belonged had been wrongly entered due t ourt relied upon Farad Badar No correspondence to conclude that es was only to rectify an errone olidation record. It was further h that he was not the owner of nsation and thereafter instituted t also noticed material cuttings that the plaintiff could not t e plaintiff was found not entitled

rect d:- e in oral held suit ugh al 1 d to to a .60, ous held take

the relief of dec parties to bear th Findings of the

9.

evidence and re correction effec within jurisdicti amount to altera admission of th further observed in possession o prejudice. It wa Killa No.21/1 m consolidation re due to a cleri authorities were rightly dismisse the judgment an

10.

concurrent judg

14.02.2018 and suit filed by the Findings of this

11.

A p permanent injun possession of t claration or injunction, and the su heir own costs. e Lower Appellate Court e learned lower appellate Court, ecord, affirmed the findings of cted through Farad Badar No.60 ion, as it merely rectified an er ation of the consolidation record he plaintiff that there existed an d that even after the correction, f his remaining land measuring as specifically held that the lan measuring 1 kanal 14 marlas bel ecord, and the compensation had cal mistake. The appellate C e competent to correct such m ed by the trial Court. Consequen nd decree of the trial Court were e present Regular Second App gments and decrees passed b the learned lower appellate Co plaintiff–appellant has been dism s Court perusal of the plaint shows tha nction restraining the defendan the plaintiff over the suit lan

uit was dismissed while leaving , after reappreciating the pleadin f the trial Court and held that 0 dated 12.12.2011 was lawful rroneous revenue entry and did d. The appellate Court accepted an error in the revenue record the plaintiff continued to be ow g 137 kanals, thereby suffering nd comprised in Rectangle No.2 longed to defendant no.4 as per d been wrongly paid to the plain Court concluded that the reven mistake and that the suit had b ntly, the appeal was dismissed upheld. eal has been filed challenging by the learned trial Court da ourt dated 31.08.2023, whereby missed. at the suit was framed as one nts from interfering in the alle nd and for mandatory injunct

ngs, not wner 228, ntiff nue een ated for

restraining the d plaintiff has sou authorities requ the land acquisit paid to him. Su revenue authorit for injunction. I compensation o seek appropriate revenue or acq misconceived.

12.

Thi was rightly awa to him involves not be decided the plaintiff reg present suit and

13.

Equ injunction, that suit property on findings recorde failed to prove demonstrates th the consolidatio to an erroneous own admissions defendants from alienating the su ught to challenge the notice dated iring him to deposit the compen tion proceedings, on the premise ch a challenge to the notice and ties could not have been effectiv If the plaintiff was aggrieved b or by the correction of revenue e declaratory relief or to avail re quisition laws. The suit, as is Court further finds that the q arded to the plaintiff or whether t s adjudication of title and legali in a suit confined to injunction. garding entitlement to compensa have rightly not been accepted b ually significant is the requir the plaintiff must establish law the date of institution of the suit ed by both the Courts below, i his possession over the suit hat the suit land stood recorded on record and that the plaintiff ha s revenue entry which was subs s show that even after the cor

uit land. However, in substance, d 26.03.2012 issued by the reven nsation amount received by him e that the compensation was righ d to the consequential action of vely adjudicated in a simpliciter by the notice demanding refund entries, the proper remedy was medies available under the relev framed, was therefore inheren question whether the compensat the land acquired actually belon ity of revenue entries, which co . The points sought to be raised ation were beyond the scope of by both the Courts below. rement, in a suit for perman wful and actual possession over t. From the pleadings, evidence t clearly emerges that the plain land. On the contrary, the rec in favour of defendant no.4 as ad received compensation only sequently corrected. The plainti rrection, he continued to own

nue m in htly suit d of s to vant ntly ged ould d by nent ntiff cord per due ff's

possess his rema possession over

14.

Thi finds that the c proper appreciat not suffer from a Conclusion

15.

In v appeal is devoid limine.

16.

Pen

December 22, 2 tripti Wh

Wh aining land measuring 137 kana the suit land in question. is Court has independently exa concurrent findings recorded b tion of evidence and correct appl any perversity or legal infirmity view of the above discussion, th d of merit. Accordingly, the Reg nding applications, if any, also st

hether speaking/non-speaking : Speaki hether reportable : Yes/No

als, thereby negativing any claim amined the material on record y the Courts below are based lication of law. The findings warranting interference. his Court is satisfied that the pres gular Second Appeal is dismissed tand disposed off. (MANDEEP PANNU)

JUDGE

ing o

m of on do sent