IN TH 202 Lal Singh Custodian Depa CORAM: HON Present: Mr. for ap Mr. A *** PARMOD GO Appe 18.01.1996 pas whereby appeal was held that restraining defe in the manner of appellant-pla due course of Appellate Cour passed by Sub appellant-plaint cannot be disp respondents-def of Land. It was IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA AT CHANDIGARH versus Department and Another : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMO Nishchal Chetanya Manchanda, for appellant. Mr. Abhinav Mahant, Addl. A.G. Har D GOYAL, J. (ORAL) Appellant-plaintiff is aggrieved by passed by Additional District Jud appeal preferred by respondents-defen that appellant-plaintiff was not entit defendant from auctioning suit land in which defendant No.1 so desir plaintiff by respondents-defendant of law. Impugned order dated 18.0 Court by setting aside judgment an Sub-Judge First Class, Kurukshetra, plaintiff was decreed, wherein it was dispossessed until and unless his defendants in view of instructions was ordered by Court of first insta -1- UNJAB & HARYANA ARH RSA-1223-1996 (O&M) Date of decision:04.12.2025 ...Appellant ...Respondents ARMOD GOYAL anda, Advocate G. Haryana. judgment and decree dated Judge, Kurukshetra, Haryana, defendants was partly allowed. It entitled to relief of injunction land or from utilizing the land desires. However, dispossession endants was restrained except in 18.01.1996 was passed by first and decree dated 28.02.1995 shetra, Haryana, whereby suit of was held that appellant-plaintiff his claim is considered by tions of Department for Purchase instance that appellant-plaintiff SUNIL CHANDER 2025.12.05 14:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1223-1996 shall file his respondents-def 2. Case property, which State of Haryan gair-maruri on have claimed appellant-plaint 3. Both custodian Depa that it is appel accordingly ha plaintiff except granted to appel plaintiff was gi dated 11.07.199 by First Appella 4. On co by learned first first instance ha had granted hi protected till Government. appellant-plaint record during 1996 (O&M) his claim within a period of defendants will be at liberty to take Case of appellant-plaintiff is that which is owned by respondent No aryana. It is asserted that appellant on payment of rent. On the other themselves to be owner of suit plaintiff to be in illegal possession. Both the Courts have found that the Department i.e. defendant No.1. Both appellant-plaintiff, who is in posses have injuncted respondents-defen xcept in due course of law. The only appellant-plaintiff by Court of first given right to apply for allotment 07.1998. This right granted by learne ppellate Court. consideration, I do not find any first Appellate Court. It is worth no had travelled beyond the pleading him rights under the instruction the time rights are determined The instructions of Governmen plaintiff in his plaint, rather, it wa the course of evidence. No relief -2- one month, failing which take action as per law. he is in possession of suit No1-defendant No.1 through llant-plaintiff is in possession as hand, respondents-defendant suit property and have asserted the suit property vested with Both the Courts have also held possession of suit property and defendants from dispossessing only dispute is regarding relief instance, whereby appellant- otment of land under instructions learned trial Court was curtailed error in the judgment passed noticing that learned Court of eadings of appellant-plaintiff and uctions and his possession was mined under the instructions of rnment were never pleaded by was subsequently placed on relief with regard to allotment of SUNIL CHANDER 2025.12.05 14:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1223-1996 land was sough court of first which was no first Appellate can be found. can be granted arises from the interference is 5. Appe stand disposed be free to move rights available accordance with 04.12.2025 Sunil Chander Whethe Whethe 1996 (O&M) sought by appellant-plaintiff in his pl instance has travelled beyond not sought by appellant-plaintiff. ellate Court to correct error committed First Appellate Court has rightly ranted to the appellant-plaintiff. No the facts and circumstances of the is made out. Appeal is accordingly dismissed. Pen posed of. It is, however, made clear t move appropriate application before ailable under law which may be with law. ether speaking/reasoned : ether reportable : -3- plaint. Therefore, the learned pleadings and granted relief ntiff. No fault with approach of mitted by Court of first instance rightly corrected the relief which substantive question of law the present case. No case for Pending application(s), if any, clear that appellant-plaintiff shall before the authorities to seek his be decided by authorities in (PARMOD GOYAL) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No SUNIL CHANDER 2025.12.05 14:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document