RSA Nos. 4175 & 423 IN THE HIG I. Anil Kumar Amrik Singh & Or II. Parveen Rani Amrik Singh & Or CORAM: HON’BL Argued by:- Mr. For t Mr. Mr. For a Mr. For t DEEPAK GUPTA, This arise out of the learned First App of damages/com by the learned t referred to as pe 4231 of 2025 Page N: 1 of 5 Pages HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HAR RSA No. 4175 of 2025 Versus & Ors. RSA No. 4231 of 2025 ( Versus & Ors Reserved on: 13.02.202 Pronounced on: 16.02 Pronounced fully/ ope N’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Mr. Piyush Setia, Advocate For the appellant in RSA 4175 of 202 Mr. Rajesh Narang, Advocate and Mr. Abhinav Narang, Advocate For appellant in RSA 4231 of 2025. Mr. Sandeep Jasuja, Advocate For the respondents. TA, J. This order shall dispose of two Re the same judgment & decree da Appellate Court, whereby the suit f compensation was decreed, after r ed trial Court on 27.07.2023. For s per their status before the trial Co ages HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 25(O&M) …Appellan …Respondent 25 (O&M) …Appellan …Respondent .2026 2.2026 operative part: Fully PTA f 2025. 25. o Regular Second Appeals, as both e dated 11.09.2025 passed by the uit filed by the plaintiffs for recover ter reversing the dismissal recorded For the sake of clarity, parties ar l Court. llant ents llant ents both the very rded s are YOGESH MEHTA 2026.02.16 14:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA Nos. 4175 & 423 2. Trial be referred as pe 3. The agricultural land and further land from their respe purchase, the de the plaintiffs w consideration, th account of the d initiated at their Alleging that the land and had thu on 19.03.2019 se 4. The Civil Court lacke Tenancy Act, 188 land and recove pleaded that eve under Section 77 5. Upo the learned tria compensation fo unauthorized pos Group clause (n) exclusively triabl Court is express prescribed for su that even on tha the suit was dism 4231 of 2025 Page N: 2 of 5 Pages Trial court record called & perused. s per their status before trial court. The admitted factual position is and measuring 66 kanals 18 marlas and measuring 112 kanals vide sale espective vendors. It is equally u e defendants were in possession of s was that despite having purch n, they were unable to enjoy posses e defendants’ continued occupatio heir instance. Possession was ultim they had been wrongfully deprived thus suffered financial loss, the pla 9 seeking compensation along with The defendants contested the suit p acked jurisdiction in view of Sect , 1887, the dispute being one relati covery of money for use and occ ven otherwise the claim was ba n 77(5) of the Act. Upon framing of issues and appreci trial Court held that the claim n for use and occupation of ag possession. Relying upon Section 1 (n) of the Punjab Tenancy Act, it w riable by the Revenue Court and t ressly barred. The trial Court al r such a claim before the Revenue that count the claim appeared to dismissed. ages sed. To avoid confusion, parties sha urt. is that the plaintiffs purchased s vide sale deed dated 12.03.2012 sale deed No.303 dated 27.08.2012 lly undisputed that at the time o n of the suit land. The grievance o urchased the land for a valuabl ssession thereof for several years on ation and the pendency of litigation ultimately delivered on 22.01.2018 rived of cultivating their agricultura plaintiffs instituted the present sui ith interest. uit primarily on the ground that the Sections 14 and 77 of the Punjab elating to occupation of agricultura occupation thereof. It was furthe s barred by limitation as prescribed reciation of evidence led by parties laim, in substance, was one fo f agricultural land by persons in ion 14 read with Section 77(3), Third it was concluded that such a claim i nd that the jurisdiction of the Civ t also noticed that the limitation nue Court is one year and observed d to be time-barred. Consequently shall ased 2012 2012 e of ce of uable rs on ation 018. ltural t suit t the njab ltural rther ribed rties, for s in Third im is Civil ation rved ntly, YOGESH MEHTA 2026.02.16 14:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA Nos. 4175 & 423 6. In ap finding by observ but compensatio Section 77 had b partly and award @ 6% per annum 7. Havi and perusing the adopted by the binding preceden 8. Sect possession of lan or occupation o agricultural year categorically pro heard by Revenu dispute with resp (n) specifically inc 9. The an express bar o within its ambit. relief claimed. 10. A re compensation o during the period deprivation of arguments, it wa mental loss, the in tort divorced f linked to wrongfu 4231 of 2025 Page N: 3 of 5 Pages In appeal, the learned First Appella serving that the plaintiffs were not sation for monetary loss and me ad been wrongly interpreted by th arded compensation at the rate of num. Having considered submissions of the record, this Court is of the con the trial Court was in consonance edent, whereas the First Appellate C Section 14 of the Punjab Tenan f land without the consent of the la n of that land at the rate of r year, or at such rate as the Court provides that the suits mentioned t venue Courts and that no other Co respect to which such suit might b ly includes suits for sums recoverabl The language employed in Section ar on the jurisdiction of the Civil Co bit. The determinative factor, ther A reading of the plaint makes it ev n on account of their inability to eriod of the defendants’ occupation of use and occupation of agr t was suggested that damages wer the relief clause does not disclose a ed from the occupation of agricultu ngful possession and loss of agricult ages pellate Court reversed the aforesaid not claiming batai or share in crop mental harassment. Holding tha y the trial Court, it decreed the sui e of ₹20,000/- per killa with interes of learned counsel for the partie considered view that the approach nce with the statutory scheme and te Court misdirected itself in law. nancy Act makes any person in he landlord liable to pay for the use of rent payable in the precedin ourt may determine. Section 77(3 ed therein shall be instituted in and r Court shall take cognizance of an ht be instituted. Third Group clause rable under Section 14. ion 77(3) is peremptory and create il Court in respect of matters fallin therefore, is the true nature of the it evident that the plaintiffs sough y to cultivate the agricultural land on. The foundation of the claim i agricultural land. Though durin were also claimed for physical and se any independent cause of action ultural land. The claim is intrinsicall icultural use. esaid crop that suit erest rties oach and n in e use ding 77(3) and f any lause eates alling f the ught land im is uring l and ction ically YOGESH MEHTA 2026.02.16 14:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA Nos. 4175 & 423 11. The against a person Civil Court is no l v. Mehal Singh “landlord” in Sec a suit by an own possession is cov Revenue Court u overruled. The s Nath Puri, Ladw 2010(11) RCR(Civ 1980 PLJ 295. 12. In v characterization What cannot be clever drafting. I occupation of a excluded. 13. The did not advert statutory bar in i understanding of substantial misap 14. It m statute, once set for interpretative that interference unless such find misapplication of 4231 of 2025 Page N: 4 of 5 Pages The question whether a suit for m son in unauthorized possession of a no longer res integra. A Division Ben ngh, 1986 RRR 574 has authorita Section 14 must be understood in t owner for recovery of mesne prof covered by Section 14 and conseq rt under Section 77(3)(n). The earl he same principle has been reitera adwa v. Man Singh;S. Palwinder R(Civil) 66; and Ram Karan Vs. The In view of the above authoritati ion of the claim as “damages” can be done directly cannot be permit ng. If the substance of the claim is of agricultural land, the jurisdict The learned First Appellate Court, ert to the binding Division Bench r in its correct perspective. The reve g of the scope of Sections 14 and isapplication of law. may be observed that the questio settled by binding precedent of a D ative deviation. The Hon’ble Supre ence with concurrent or well-foun findings are shown to be perve n of law. ages for mesne profits or compensation of agricultural land is triable by the Bench of this Court in Pritam Singh ritatively held that the expression in the sense of landowner and tha profits against a person in wrongfu nsequently triable exclusively by th earlier contrary view was expressl iterated in Mandir Maharaj Jagan der Singh Vs. Guru Granth Sahib The Financial Commissioner & Ors itative pronouncements, the mer cannot alter its essential character rmitted to be achieved indirectly b m is recovery of money for use and diction of the Civil Court stand urt, while reversing the trial Court ench judgment nor examined the reversal thus rests on an erroneou and 77 of the Act and amounts to a estion of jurisdiction under a specia f a Division Bench, leaves little room upreme Court has repeatedly held founded findings is not warranted erverse or based on a substantia ation y the Singh ssion that ngful y the essly agan ahib, Ors. mere cter. ly by and tands ourt, the eous to a ecial room held nted ntial YOGESH MEHTA 2026.02.16 14:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA Nos. 4175 & 423 15. In t statutory bar as departure theref restored the posi of law survives be 16. For 11.09.2025 passe are hereby set as learned trial Cou Appeals are acco Misc 16.02.2026 Jiten Whe Whe Uplo 4231 of 2025 Page N: 5 of 5 Pages In the present case, the trial Co r as interpreted by binding author erefrom was legally unsustainable. T position in accordance with settled es beyond the jurisdictional issue ad For the foregoing reasons, the assed by the learned First Appellate et aside. The judgment and decree Court dismissing the suit are rest accordingly allowed. Misc. Applications, if any stand dispo hether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No hether reportable : Yes/No Uploaded on : February 16, 2026 ages l Court had correctly applied th thority. The First Appellate Court’ le. This Court, therefore, has merel tled law, and no substantial question e addressed herein. the judgment and decree dated llate Court cannot be sustained and ree dated 27.07.2023 passed by the restored. Both the Regular Second disposed of. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE the urt’s erely stion ated and y the cond YOGESH MEHTA 2026.02.16 14:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document