Haryana Urban Development Authority And Anr vs Rukmani Devi

RSA-3355-2023 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH


RSA-3355-2023 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 11.11.2026



Haryana Urban Development Authority and another ...Appellants
Versus
Smt. Rukmani Devi ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

Present: Mr. Prateek Mahajan, Advocate and
Mr. Kunal Soni, Advocate for the appellants.


DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

The defendants have preferred the present regular second appeal
against the judgment & decree dated 09.01.2023 passed by learned Additional
District Judge, Faridabad, whereby their appeal against the judgment & decree
dated 07.09.2021 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridabad,
was dismissed. The learned trial Court had decreed the suit instituted by the
respondent-plaintiff for declaration and consequential relief of permanent

injunction.
2. Briefly stated, the respondent-plaintiff instituted the suit claiming
to be in possession of House No.277-B, Shastri Colony, Old Faridabad,
measuring 237.5 square yards, allegedly comprised in Khasra No.122.
According to her, the property had been purchased from Mohammad Usman in
the year 1993, who had earlier acquired leasehold rights from Ram Kishore and
Nand Kishore. It was pleaded that Mohammad Usman had instituted a civil suit
against the present appellants and others, which was decreed on 03.03.1992,
restraining interference with his possession over the property situated in
Khasra No.122. Despite the said adjudication, the appellants issued notice
dated 22.07.2015, alleging unauthorised occupation of land comprised in
Khasra No.111 and threatening eviction. Accordingly, the plaintiff sought a
YOGESH MEHTA
2026.11.11 16:25
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page N: 1 of Total 7 Pages

RSA-3355-2023 (O&M)
declaration regarding the invalidity of the notice and an injunction against

interference with her possession.
3. The suit was contested by the appellants on the ground that the
respondent was in unauthorised occupation of land comprised in Khasra
No.111, which had been acquired by the State of Haryana vide Award No.11
dated 12.01.1973. It was asserted that the respondent was attempting to
appropriate the acquired land by incorrectly describing the property as forming

part of Khasra No.122.
4. Upon appreciation of the evidence, learned trial Court found that
the controversy concerning the location of the property had already been
adjudicated in the earlier litigation instituted by Mohammad Usman. It was
further noticed that pursuant to the earlier decree, demarcation had been
conducted on 02.07.1992, which established that the construction raised by
Mohammad Usman was situated in Khasra No.122 and not in Khasra Nos.111 &
112. The appellants had failed to produce any subsequent demarcation
establishing encroachment upon the acquired land. Consequently, the notice
dated 22.07.2015 was declared null and void, and the appellants were

restrained from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession.
5. Learned First Appellate Court independently examined the
evidence and affirmed the findings of the trial Court. It was particularly noticed
that DW1 Manoj Vashisth, Patwari, admitted during cross-examination that he
had never visited the suit property, that no demarcation had been conducted
in his presence and that no demarcation report had been produced by the

department to substantiate the alleged encroachment.
6. Assailing the concurrent findings, Learned counsel for the
appellants contends that the Courts below have failed to appreciate that
Khasra No.111 stands acquired by the State Government and that the
respondent cannot claim any right over government land merely on the
strength of her possession. It is submitted that the earlier decree obtained by
Mohammad Usman was only a decree for permanent injunction and did not
confer ownership upon him. Consequently, the respondent, claiming through
YOGESH MEHTA
2026.11.11 16:25
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page N: 2 of Total 7 Pages

RSA-3355-2023 (O&M)
Mohammad Usman, cannot acquire any superior right. It is further contended
that the decree passed in favour of Mohammad Usman expressly reserved the
appellants' right to remove encroachments from Khasra Nos.111 and 112, and
therefore, the Courts below could not have granted an injunction, which would
prevent the appellants from exercising their lawful rights over the acquired

land.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the appellants and examined the
judgments under challenge, this Court finds no ground warranting interference
with the concurrent findings, subject, however, to clarification regarding the

nature and extent of the relief granted.
8. The main controversy between the parties concerns the identity
and location of the suit property. While the respondent asserts that House
No.277-B is situated in Khasra No.122, the appellants maintain that it
encroaches upon Khasra No.111. It is not disputed that Khasra Nos.111 and 112
were acquired by the State Government, whereas Khasra No.122 was outside
the acquisition. Thus, the determinative question is not merely whether the
appellants have rights over the acquired land, but whether the property

occupied by the respondent actually falls within such land.
9. In this context, the judgment and decree dated 03.03.1992 passed
in the suit instituted by Mohammad Usman is important. The operative portion
of that decree established that Mohammad Usman was in possession of the
property comprised in Khasra No.122 and restrained the defendants from
interfering with such possession. However, the decree simultaneously
preserved the rights of the present appellants in respect of Khasra Nos.111 and

112.
10. The relevant portion of the earlier decree, reproduced in the

judgment of the First Appellate Court, reads as under:
"This order will have no bearing upon the rights of defendant no.1 and 2 to get
cleared their khasra nos. 111 and 112 by removing structure therefore in any
way, but only after getting their khasra numbers demarcated from authorized

agency after giving notice to the plaintiff".
YOGESH MEHTA
2026.11.11 16:25
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page N: 3 of Total 7 Pages

RSA-3355-2023 (O&M)
11. The aforesaid decree, therefore, contains two distinct and equally
important determinations. First, Mohammad Usman's possession over the
property situated in Khasra No.122 was protected against interference by the
appellants. Second, the appellants' rights to secure removal of encroachments,
if any, from Khasra Nos.111 and 112 were expressly preserved, subject to prior

demarcation by an authorised agency after notice to the concerned occupant.
12. The protection granted by the earlier decree cannot be enlarged
into a declaration of ownership over the acquired land, nor can the liberty
reserved in favour of the appellants be rendered nugatory. The decree must be

read in its entirety, giving effect to both its protective and qualifying portions.
13. It is also material that the respondent claims through Mohammad
Usman. Consequently, whatever rights she asserts in relation to the property
are necessarily subject to the limitations attaching to the rights of her
predecessor. She cannot, merely by virtue of the subsequent transaction or
continuation of possession, claim any greater protection against the appellants

than that available to Mohammad Usman under the decree dated 03.03.1992.
14. At the same time, the appellants cannot disregard the binding
adjudication in the earlier litigation. The decree dated 03.03.1992 admittedly
attained finality. The learned trial Court has recorded that, pursuant thereto,
demarcation was conducted on 02.07.1992 in the presence of the parties and
the construction raised by Mohammad Usman was found to be situated in

Khasra No.122. The said demarcation report was exhibited as Ex.P6.
15. Significantly, the appellants have not produced any subsequent
demarcation report establishing that the respondent has encroached upon
Khasra No.111. Their witness DW1 admitted that he had neither visited the
property nor participated in its demarcation. He further admitted that no
demarcation report prepared by the competent revenue authorities had been
placed on record. In these circumstances, the mere assertion that the
respondent is occupying acquired land cannot displace the earlier adjudication

and the demarcation conducted pursuant thereto.
YOGESH MEHTA
2026.11.11 16:25
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page N: 4 of Total 7 Pages

RSA-3355-2023 (O&M)
16. The Courts below have also noticed the documentary evidence
concerning the re-allotment of Plot No.878-P, Sector-19, Faridabad in favour of
respondent – Mohammad Usman, in place of Plot No.783-P, Sector-19,
Faridabad. Although such re-allotment, by itself, cannot confer title upon the
respondent, it constitutes an additional circumstance, which was considered by
the Courts below while examining the appellants' assertion regarding the

identity of the disputed property.
17. It is equally important that neither of the Courts below has
declared the respondent to be the absolute owner of the suit property. Indeed,
learned trial Court specifically noticed that the affidavit executed by
Mohammad Usman was insufficient to confer ownership upon the respondent.
Learned First Appellate Court also observed that the question of title was not
being adjudicated in the present proceedings. The decree is, therefore,
essentially one protecting possession against interference founded upon an

unsubstantiated allegation of encroachment.
18. The legal position is well settled that a person in settled possession
cannot ordinarily be dispossessed by force or otherwise than in accordance
with law. Reference may be made to Rame Gowda (Dead) by LRs v. M.
Varadappa Naidu (Dead) by LRs and another, (2004) 1 SCC 769 . However, such
protection does not confer ownership upon an unauthorised occupant or
prevent the true owner or competent statutory authority from taking lawful
proceedings for recovery of possession. In Premji Ratansey Shah and others v.
Union of India and others, (1994) 5 SCC 547, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
explained that an injunction cannot be granted to protect unlawful possession

against the true owner.
19. Applying these principles, this Court finds that the respondent is
entitled to protection against interference with her possession over the
property situated in Khasra No.122, particularly in view of the earlier decree
and the demarcation report. However, she cannot claim any injunction
restraining the appellants from proceeding in accordance with law against any

encroachment, if established, upon Khasra Nos.111 and 112.
YOGESH MEHTA
2026.11.11 16:25
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page N: 5 of Total 7 Pages

RSA-3355-2023 (O&M)
20. The decree passed by learned trial Court, declaring the notice
dated 22.07.2015 null and void and restraining interference with the
respondent's possession, must necessarily be understood in the context of the
pleadings, evidence and earlier decree dated 03.03.1992. The injunction cannot
be interpreted as an absolute prohibition against the appellants exercising their

statutory or proprietary rights over land comprised in Khasra Nos.111 and 112.
21. It is, therefore, clarified that the decree under challenge shall
protect the respondent's possession over the property comprised in Khasra
No.122, as identified in the earlier proceedings. It shall not prevent the
appellants from undertaking a fresh demarcation through a competent and
authorised agency, after giving due notice and opportunity of participation to
the respondent, and thereafter initiating appropriate proceedings in
accordance with law if any encroachment upon Khasra Nos.111 or 112 is
established. Such proceedings shall remain subject to the earlier decree dated
03.03.1992 and the applicable statutory requirements. No demolition or
dispossession shall be undertaken merely on the basis of an unverified

assertion regarding the location of the property.
22. The concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below, insofar as
they relate to the location of the existing house, the absence of any proved
encroachment upon Khasra No.111 and the invalidity of the impugned notice,
are founded upon appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence. No
perversity, misreading of material evidence or application of an incorrect legal
principle has been demonstrated which would warrant interference in exercise

of jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC.
23. The jurisdiction of this Court in a regular second appeal is confined
to substantial questions of law. Concurrent findings of fact cannot be reopened
merely because another view of the evidence may be possible. Reference in
this regard may be made to Hero Vinoth (Minor) v. Seshammal, (2006) 5 SCC
545, and Kondiba Dagadu Kadam v. Savitribai Sopan Gujar and others, (1999)

3 SCC 722.
YOGESH MEHTA
2026.11.11 16:25
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page N: 6 of Total 7 Pages

RSA-3355-2023 (O&M)
24. In the present case, the apprehension expressed on behalf of the
appellants regarding the possible enlargement of the injunction stands
adequately addressed by the clarification recorded hereinabove. The
judgments and decrees of the Courts below, when understood within their
proper legal limits, do not suffer from any infirmity giving rise to a substantial

question of law.
25. Consequently, the present regular second appeal is dismissed,
subject to the clarification contained in paragraph 21 above. The judgments
and decrees of the Courts below shall be construed accordingly. No substantial
question of law arises for consideration. Pending miscellaneous applications, if
any, shall also stand disposed of.

11.11.2026 (DEEPAK GUPTA)

Yogesh
JUDGE


Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No

Whether reportable: Yes/No



YOGESH MEHTA
2026.11.11 16:25
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page N: 7 of Total 7 Pages