Zile Singh Sine Deceased through Legal Representatives Vs State of Haryana and Others

Th e present regular second appea l has been filed by the appella n ts– plaintiffs again s t the respondents–defendants c h allenging the judgment and de c ree dated 14.02.20 1 8 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jhajja r in Civil Suit No. 2 46/2012, as well as the judg m ent and decree dated 31.08.2 0 23 passed by the l e arned Additional District Jud g e, Jhajjar in Civil Appeal No. C A- 126-2018, whe r eby the suit filed by the plain t iffs for permanent and manda t ory injunction has b een dismissed and the appeal th e reagainst has also been rejecte d .

¶14

Brief Facts

¶15

Br i efly stated, the facts of the ca s e are that the plaintiff Zile Si n gh claimed himsel f to be owner in possession o f agricultural land measuring 137 kanals 3 marla s situated within the revenue es t ate of village Dighal, Tehsil B eri, District Jhajjar. Out of the said land, land meas u ring 1 kanal 1 marla comprise d in Rectangle No.228, Killa No.21/1 (1-14) is the subject matter of the present s uit. The plaintiff pl e aded that he was owner in possession of the said land since the time of consoli d ation and had inherited the sam e from his forefathers. TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.22 16:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶16

RSA-2900-2024 (O&M)

¶17

- 2-

¶18

It w as averred that in the year 2 0 06, Award No.7 dated 18.05.2 0 06 was announced for acquisition of land for Di g hal Link Drain, pursuant to w h ich land measuring 1 kanal 1 marla out of the suit l a nd was acquired and compensa t ion amounting to Rs.2,35,265/- was paid to the pla i ntiff. The plaintiff asserted that the remaining land continued to be owned and p o ssessed by him and that no o t her person had any r ight, title or interest therein.

¶19

Ac c ording to the plaintiff, subseq u ently defendant no.3 reported t hat the acquired la n d did not fall in the ownership of the plaintiff and on the basi s of such report, Fa r ad Badar No.60 dated 12.12. 2 011 was sanctioned by the Ci r cle Revenue Offic e r, whereby revenue entries w ere altered. Consequent ther e to, notices dated 2 6 .03.2012 and 17.04.2012 were issued to the plaintiff calling u p on him to deposit t he compensation amount earlie r paid to him. The plaintiff pleaded that the said Fa r ad Badar and the notices issue d pursuant thereto were illegal, n ull and void, havin g been passed without issuing a n y notice or granting opportunit y of hearing to him and that the Circle Revenue O fficer had no authority to cha n ge consolidation r e cord under the garb of correctio n . 5. O n these averments, the plainti f f filed the present suit see k ing permanent inju n ction restraining the defendant s from interfering in his posses s ion and from alien a ting the suit land, along with a mandatory injunction directing the defendants to c a ncel Farad Badar No.60 and r e straining them from recovering the compensation a m ount from him. 6. Th e defendants contested the s u it by filing written statements. Defendants no. 1 to 3 took the stand that the la n d acquired in the year 2006 did not belong to the plaintiff and that the compensat i on had been wrongly paid to h im. Defendant no.4 and his legal representatives cl a imed ownership over the acqu i red TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.22 16:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶20

RSA-2900-2024 (O&M) - 3-

¶21

land and asser t ed that Farad Badar No.60 w as validly sanctioned to cor r ect erroneous reve n ue entries.

¶22

Fr o m the pleadings of the parties, t h e following issues were frame d :- 1. Whether the plaintiff is ent i tled to a decree of declaration and m a ndatory injunction as prayed fo r ?

¶23

Relief.

¶24

7. The parties have led both oral and documentary evidence in

¶25

support of their pleadings.

¶26

Findings of The Trial Court

¶27

Th e learned trial Court, upon a p preciation of the pleadings, o ral evidence and d o cumentary record, decided Issu e No.1 against the plaintiff and h eld that the plaintif f failed to prove his ownership a nd lawful entitlement over the suit land comprised in Rectangle No.228, Killa No. 2 1/1. The Court found that altho u gh the plaintiff ha d received compensation for acq u isition of land measuring 1 kan a l 1 marla pursuan t to Award No.7 dated 18. 0 5.2006, the revenue record and documentary e v idence clearly established that the said land actually belonge d to defendant no.4 and that the plaintiff’s name h ad been wrongly entered due t o a clerical error in the revenue entries. The trial C o urt relied upon Farad Badar No.60, jamabandis, mortgage documents and official c orrespondence to conclude that the correction carri e d out by the revenue authoriti e s was only to rectify an erroneous entry and did n o t amount to alteration of cons o lidation record. It was further h eld that the plainti f f, despite having knowledge t hat he was not the owner of the acquired land, h ad wrongfully received compe n sation and thereafter instituted the suit to restrain r ecovery of the same. The Cour t also noticed material cuttings and overwritings i n the revenue record and held that the plaintiff could not t ake advantage of a wrong entry. Consequently, th e plaintiff was found not entitle d to TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.22 16:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶28

RSA-2900-2024 (O&M) - 4-

¶29

the relief of de c laration or injunction, and the s u it was dismissed while leaving the parties to bear t h eir own costs.

¶30

Findings of the Lower Appellate Court

¶31

Th e learned lower appellate Court , after reappreciating the pleadi n gs, evidence and r e cord, affirmed the findings o f the trial Court and held that the correction effe c ted through Farad Badar No.6 0 dated 12.12.2011 was lawful and within jurisdict i on, as it merely rectified an e r roneous revenue entry and did not amount to alter a tion of the consolidation recor d . The appellate Court accepted the admission of t h e plaintiff that there existed an error in the revenue record and further observe d that even after the correction, the plaintiff continued to be o w ner in possession of his remaining land measurin g 137 kanals, thereby suffering no prejudice. It w a s specifically held that the la n d comprised in Rectangle No. 2 28, Killa No.21/1 m easuring 1 kanal 14 marlas be l onged to defendant no.4 as per the consolidation r e cord, and the compensation ha d been wrongly paid to the plai n tiff due to a clerical mistake. The appellate C ourt concluded that the reve n ue authorities wer e competent to correct such m istake and that the suit had been rightly dismiss e d by the trial Court. Conseque n tly, the appeal was dismissed and the judgment a n d decree of the trial Court were upheld. 10. Th e present Regular Second Appeal has been filed challenging the concurrent jud g ments and decrees passed b y the learned trial Court d a ted 14.02.2018 and the learned lower appellate C o urt dated 31.08.2023, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff–appellant has been dis m issed.

¶32

Findings of this Court

¶33

A p erusal of the plaint shows th a t the suit was framed as one for permanent inju n ction restraining the defenda n ts from interfering in the alleged possession of t he plaintiff over the suit la n d and for mandatory injunc t ion TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.22 16:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶34

RSA-2900-2024 (O&M) - 5-

¶35

restraining the d efendants from alienating the s u it land. However, in substance, the plaintiff has so u ght to challenge the notice date d 26.03.2012 issued by the reve n ue authorities requiring him to deposit the compe n sation amount received by hi m in the land acquisi t ion proceedings, on the premis e that the compensation was rig h tly paid to him. Such a challenge to the notice an d to the consequential action of the revenue authori t ies could not have been effecti v ely adjudicated in a simpliciter suit for injunction. I f the plaintiff was aggrieved b y the notice demanding refun d of compensation o r by the correction of revenue entries, the proper remedy wa s to seek appropriat e declaratory relief or to avail remedies available under the rele v ant revenue or ac q uisition laws. The suit, as framed, was therefore inhere n tly misconceived.

¶36

Th i s Court further finds that the q uestion whether the compensa t ion was rightly aw a rded to the plaintiff or whether t he land acquired actually belonged to him involve s adjudication of title and legal i ty of revenue entries, which c o uld not be decided in a suit confined to injunction . The points sought to be raise d by the plaintiff re g arding entitlement to compens a tion were beyond the scope of the present suit and have rightly not been accepted b y both the Courts below. 13. Eq u ally significant is the requi r ement, in a suit for perma n ent injunction, that the plaintiff must establish la w ful and actual possession over the suit property on the date of institution of the sui t . From the pleadings, evidence and findings record e d by both the Courts below, it clearly emerges that the plai n tiff failed to prove his possession over the suit land. On the contrary, the re c ord demonstrates t h at the suit land stood recorded in favour of defendant no.4 as per the consolidati o n record and that the plaintiff h a d received compensation only due to an erroneou s revenue entry which was sub s equently corrected. The plaintiff’s own admission s show that even after the co r rection, he continued to own and TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.22 16:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶37

RSA-2900-2024 (O&M) - 6-

¶38

possess his rem a ining land measuring 137 kan a ls, thereby negativing any clai m of possession over the suit land in question.

¶39

Th i s Court has independently ex a mined the material on record and finds that the c oncurrent findings recorded by the Courts below are based on proper apprecia t ion of evidence and correct app l ication of law. The findings do not suffer from a ny perversity or legal infirmity warranting interference.

¶40

Conclusion

¶41

In v iew of the above discussion, t h is Court is satisfied that the pre s ent appeal is devoi d of merit. Accordingly, the Re g ular Second Appeal is dismisse d in limine.

¶42

Pe n ding applications, if any, also s t and disposed off.

¶43

December 22, 2025 (MANDEEP PANNU) tripti JUDGE W h ether speaking/non-speaking : Speak i ng W h ether reportable : Yes/N o

¶44

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.22 16:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohan Lal and Ors. Vs Ruldu Ram and Ors.

Jitender Bhatia Vs Bimla Ahuja and Others

Sanjeev Kumar Malhotra Vs Sukhbir Singh

Nanhi and Ors. Vs Maha Singh and Ors.

Rohit Sharma Vs Abhishek Mahindra and Others

Surinder Singh Vs Lalit Saroch