Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sheo Chand vs Gram Panchayat & Ors on 9 December, 2025
RSA-1340-2018 (O&M) [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RSA-1340-2018 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 09.12.2025
SHEO CHAND ...Appellant
Versus
GRAM PANCHAYAT AND OTHERS ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL
Present:- Mr. Sandeep Kumar Yadav, Advocate and
Ms. Sangeeta Yadav, Advocate for the appellant.
VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J.
1. This is plaintiff's appeal against the judgment and decree dated 28.07.2017 passed by the Court of District Judge, Narnaul, dismissing the appeal against the judgment and decree dated 03.10.2015 passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mahendergarh, whereby the suit of the plaintiff for declaration, was dismissed.
2. For the sake of convenience and clarity, parties shall be referred to as per their original status.
3. The plaintiff (Sheo Chand) filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the notice issued by Gram Panchayat, Paiga, against the son of the plaintiff under Section 24(1) and (2) of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for short `the 1994 Act'), was illegal, null & void and the same was liable to be set aside. Relief of permanent injunction was also sought restraining the defendants from interfering 1 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 15-12-2025 21:34:03 ::: RSA-1340-2018 (O&M) [2] in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff's house along with Chabutra (hereinafter referred to as `the suit property') and further demolishing the same.
4. It was claimed that the plaintiff, being a permanent resident of Village Paiga, was owner in possession of the suit property (shown in the site plan by Mark ABCDE) situated in village Paiga, Tehsil and District Mahendergarh. It was further averred that the suit property had been in existence for the last 70 years i.e., since the time of forefathers of the plaintiff and the defendants had no concern with the same. It was further averred that the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat had levied a fine of Rs.100/- upon the plaintiff and upon an appeal having been filed by the plaintiff, the order of fine was set aside on 21.11.2002 by the Director, Development and Panchayat, with a direction that the Gram Panchayat should first get the land demarcated and, thereafter, take action under the Punjab Village, Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. One Kedarnath filed an application under Section 7 of the said Act against the plaintiff which was dismissed on 15.05.2000 by the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, holding that the suit property was old construction. Another application under Section 7 of the aforesaid Act filed against the plaintiff by the Gram Panchayat was also dismissed by the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade vide order dated 28.08.2003. It was further claimed that as the plaintiff had constructed his house in alignment with the other houses in the neighborhood, the notice issued by the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat was illegal, null and void. It was further asserted that no encroachment had been done by the plaintiff upon the passage and 2 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 15-12-2025 21:34:03 ::: RSA-1340-2018 (O&M) [3] that under the garb of the aforesaid notice(s), the defendants had been threatening to demolish the suit property.
5. In the joint written statement filed by Defendants No.1 and 2, it was pointed out that the site plan filed by the plaintiff was wrong and not in accordance with the factual position. It was further asserted that the plaintiff had not constructed the house in his own property and as a matter of fact, the son of the plaintiff (proforma defendant No.3) had been residing in the suit property for the last 4-5 months by illegally encroaching upon the area of Khasra No.48, which was Rasta Sare-aam by raising construction of boundary wall and a private toilet in a triangular manner, causing obstruction in the smooth running of the passage. It was further asserted that in order to remove the said encroachment, notices under Section 24(1) and (2) of the 1994 Act were issued, in reply whereof, proforma defendant No.3 had stated that he was not residing in the suit property and the notice be issued to his father. It was further pleaded that Defendant No.1 had sent a letter to defendant No.2 for removing the illegal encroachment by providing adequate police help, pursuant whereto defendant No.2 had sent letter dated 08.04.2011 to the Deputy Commissioner, Mahendergarh, Narnaul. The Deputy Commissioner sought report from the concerned Officer, who reported that in front of the house of the plaintiff passage was 15 feet which earlier was of 17 feet and that proforma defendant No.3 was also residing with the plaintiff in the same house. It was, thus, asserted that the defendants were well within their right to remove the illegal encroachment made by the plaintiff.
3 of 7
::: Downloaded on - 15-12-2025 21:34:03 :::
RSA-1340-2018 (O&M) [4]
6. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:-
1. Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of suit property as detailed in head note of the plaint? OPP
2. Whether notices under Section 24(1) and 24(2) of Haryana Panchayati Raj Act issued by defendant No. 1 against defendant No. 3 is illegal, null and void? OPP
3. Whether plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration? OPP
4. Whether plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction? OPP
5. Whether suit is not maintainable? OPD
6. Whether plaintiff is estopped from filing the suit due to his act and conduct? OPD
7. Whether this court has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit? OPD
8. Relief.
7. Parties led their respective evidence.
8. The trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 03.10.2015. The appeal filed by the plaintiff was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 28.07.2017 passed by the first Appellate Court.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have also perused the record.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that from the site plan Ex.PW1/A, it stood proved on record that the house of the plaintiff had been constructed in alignment with the houses of the other villagers, but both Courts totally ignored the same. It is further argued that the demarcation report (Ex.DW5/B) had been prepared at 4 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 15-12-2025 21:34:03 ::: RSA-1340-2018 (O&M) [5] the back of the appellant as no notice thereof was ever given to him and both Courts wrongly relied upon the same. It is further argued that if the plaintiff had encroached upon any part of the Panchayat land, proceedings under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, ought to have been initiated against him, but instead, the defendants proceeded to issue notices under Section 24(2) and 24(4) of the 1994 Act. It is also argued that the factum of setting aside of the fine imposed upon the appellant for the alleged encroachment and dismissal of the application under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, filed by one Kedarnath, were not taken into consideration by the Courts, while passing the impugned judgments and decrees. It is, thus, argued that the findings recorded by both Courts are liable to be set aside.
11. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant, but find the same to be devoid of any merit.
12. Both Courts found that the construction of the boundary wall and the toilet had been raised upon Rasta-sare-Aam falling in Ahata No. 48 and as such, the notices issued by the defendants were perfectly legal. It was also found that defendant No.3 (son of the plaintiff) had been residing with his father and therefore, notices issued to him by the defendants, could not be said to be without any valid reason. Apart from that it was also found that the plaintiff's witnesses had also deposed in their testimony that the construction of boundary wall and the private toilet had been raised in the recent past. The Court of District Judge, Narnaul, recorded the following findings:-
5 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 15-12-2025 21:34:03 ::: RSA-1340-2018 (O&M) [6] "16. Rajender Verma, Draftsman, who has prepared the site plan Ex. PW1/A while appearing in the witness box as PW1 has admitted that he has not mentioned the dimension of the house in question in the site plan. Hoshiyar Singh, the co-villager while appearing in the witness box as PW2 has admitted in his cross-
examination that the site plan was not prepared in his presence. The witness has also deposed that the width of the passage in front of his house and the house of the plaintiff was 15-16 feet and no demarcation of the passage was conducted in his presence. Sheo Chand, the plaintiff while appearing in the witness box as PW3 has also admitted that in the site plan Ex.PW1/A the dimension of his house has not been mentioned. He has also deposed that he got constructed the latrine about one and 1-1/2 year ago and the width of the passage as per the revenue record was 2 karam. He has also deposed that he and his sons have been residing in the same house and has admitted that in the judgment dated 28.08.2003 the width of the passage in front of his house has been shown as 17 feet. Even he has admitted that he has not challenged the report of Panchayat Officer in any competent Court of law. PW4 Amar Singh in his cross-examination has deposed that the house in question was in existence prior to his birth and latrine, bathroom and boundary wall were constructed later and the width of the passage was 16-1/2 feet.
17. Perusal of application Ex. DW1/B proved by DW1 Rajender Singh shows that it was filed by Rajender to Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat alleging that Mahesh son of Sheo Chand had been constructing latrine in the passage in front of his house illegally and thereafter notice under Section 24(1) dated 14.03.2011 and 24(2) of the Act dated 15.03.2011 Ex. D9 and Ex. D10 respectively were served upon Mahesh the son of the defendant No.3 thereby directing him to remove the encroachment made by him illegally. The order dated 28.08.2003 Ex. P2 passed by Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Mohindergarh would show that the application under Section 7 of the Act was dismissed, however, it was held that Gram Panchayat would be entitled to get the passage demarcated and if encroachment was found over there then the Gram Panchayat would also be entitled to get the proceedings of the same conducted afresh.
18. Even the application dated 20.02.2013 (Ex.DW5/A) was moved to get the demarcation of ahata No. 48 conducted and vide 6 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 15-12-2025 21:34:03 ::: RSA-1340-2018 (O&M) [7] order dated 21.03.2013 necessary direction was given to Tehsildar, Mohindergarh to get the demarcation of ahata No. 48 conducted through Kanungo and thereafter, demarcation of ahata No. 48 was conducted on 10.09.2014 by Kanungo, report of which is Ex. DW5/B wherein encroachment on 416 square feet by Sheo Chand, the plaintiff by raising the house and sahan illegally has been mentioned. Even in the revenue record Ex. D1 also ahata No. 46 and 48 is shown to be of shamlat deh. In view of aforesaid discussion, it is duly proved that the house in question and chabutara had been constructed by the plaintiff over the passage owned and possessed by the Gram Panchayat illegally and the Gram Panchayat has every right to get the same demolished by issuing notices Ex. D9 and Ex. D10 to the plaintiff. The learned lower court has rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiff."
13. The concurrent findings of facts recorded by the Courts below are based on the appreciation of evidence brought on record. It could not be pointed out that any evidence has been misread or not taken into consideration. Thus, I do not find that the findings recorded by the Courts below suffer from any patent illegality which may warrant interference by this Court in the present appeal.
14. In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, I do not find any merit in the present appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.
15. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(VIKRAM AGGARWAL) JUDGE 09.12.2025 ds Whether reasoned/speaking: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No 7 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 15-12-2025 21:34:03 :::