122 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM-7431-C-2025 in/and RSA-2181-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: July 01, 2025 State of Haryana and others … Appellants Versus Khem Chand and others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Aman Bahri, Addl. A.G., Haryana for the appellants. DEEPAK GUPTA , J.(Oral) CM-7430-C-2025 and CM-7431-C-2025 These two applica ons have been moved to condone the delay of 104 days in re-filing and delay of 14 days in filing the appeal. Heard. For the reasons as men oned in the applica on, supported by affidavit of Mr. Umar Khan, Block Educa on Officer, Ferozepur Jhirka Nuh, delay of 104 days in re-filing and delay of 14 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. The applica ons stand disposed of. RSA-2181-2025 (O&M) This is appeal filed by defendant Nos.3 to 5 of the suit against reversal. Plain ff - Khem Chand filed suit seeking decree of permanent injunc on in respect of land comprised in Rect. No.9 Killa No.7/13(0-3) measuring 0 kanal 03 marla situated within the revenue estate of village Patan Udaipuri, Tehsil Ferozepur Jhirka, District Mewat. It is not in dispute that the plain ff is the owner of the said land. It was alleged by the plain ff that defendant Nos.1 and 2 had encroached upon the western por on of the land; whereas defendant Nos.3 to 5, i.e. appellants herein had Sarita Rani 2025.07.02 09:51 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order CM-7431-C-2025 in - 2 - 2025:PHHC:077329 RSA-2181-2025 (O&M) encoarched upon the remaining por on of land. Plain ff had relied upon the demarca on report dated 10.10.2017. 2. The trial Court dismissed the suit because demarca on was not conducted in the presence of the par es and besides demarca on report dated 10.10.2017 was not proved as per law. The Appellate Court got conducted the fresh demarca on, which was conducted in the presence of both the par es by own officials of the appellants-defendants and the demarca on so conducted by the orders of the Appellate Court, confirmed the encroachment on the part of the appellants. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that plain ffs- respondents may be compensated regarding 03 marla of land because the building of the school is lying constructed on the land in dispute. 4. This Court does not find merit in the aforesaid conten on. Once it has been found that defendants-State of Haryana, which should be the protector for others, has encroached upon the private land of the plain ffs-respondents, which has been confirmed in the demarca on conducted by the officials of the appellants, it does not lie in the mouth of the appellants to plead that the plain ffs can be compensated by giving some other land. 5. Finding no merit in the present appeal, the same is hereby dismissed. July 01, 2025 (DEEPAK GUPTA) sarita JUDGE Whether reasoned/speaking: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No Sarita Rani 2025.07.02 09:51 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order