Encroachment Claims Do Not Justify Forcible Dispossession: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Injunction, Dismisses Appeal

Even an Encroacher Cannot Be Evicted by Force, Only Due Process of Law Applies - In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a second appeal filed by Sukhdev Singh, challenging the permanent injunction granted in favor of Dhan Dhan Bapu Kumbh Dass Ji & Others. The single-judge bench of Justice Nidhi Gupta upheld the lower courts’ concurrent findings that the plaintiffs, a registered management committee, had established exclusive possession over the suit property, and the defendant had no right to forcibly dispossess them.

"A co-sharer cannot dispossess another co-sharer by force, and any dispute regarding possession must be resolved through legal proceedings," the Court observed. Rejecting the defendant’s argument that the plaintiffs had encroached upon public land, the Court clarified that even if an encroachment existed, only competent municipal authorities could act, not private individuals taking the law into their own hands.

"Exclusive Possession Established, Defendant Has No Locus Standi to Interfere"

The plaintiffs, a registered religious management committee, had sought a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with their possession, obstructing their activities, or demolishing existing structures on a 14-marla property in Village Garhi, Tehsil Garhshankar.

The defendant alleged that the plaintiffs had encroached on a public passage and relied on a Local Commissioner’s report to support his claim. However, the trial court found that:

"The plaintiffs are in exclusive settled possession of the disputed land as co-sharers. The defendant has no authority to interfere in their possession, much less forcibly evict them. The alleged encroachment, if any, is a matter for municipal authorities, not private individuals."

"Encroachment Is Not a Defense for Self-Help Eviction": High Court Cautions Against Taking Law Into Private Hands

Justice Nidhi Gupta reaffirmed a well-established legal principle that even a trespasser in settled possession cannot be forcibly evicted without due process.

"Even assuming the plaintiffs have encroached upon public land, the defendant has no right to forcibly remove them. Any action regarding encroachment must be taken by competent municipal authorities and not by private individuals," the Court stated.

The judgment cited Supreme Court precedents, including Rame Gowda v. Varadappa Naidu, which held that: "A person in settled possession, even if a trespasser, cannot be dispossessed without following due process of law."

Similarly, in A. Subramanian v. R. Pannerselvam, the Supreme Court ruled that: "A suit for permanent injunction can be filed without seeking a declaration of title, and even a trespasser can obtain an injunction against forcible dispossession."

"Law Does Not Permit Taking Justice Into One’s Own Hands": High Court Dismisses Appeal, Upholds Injunction

Dismissing the appeal, the High Court upheld the lower courts' order restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiffs’ peaceful possession.

"The decree passed in favor of the plaintiffs restrains the defendant from interfering with their lawful possession, obstructing their management, or demolishing their structures—except in due course of law," the Court ruled.

This judgment reinforces a crucial legal principle: No individual, even if alleging encroachment, can take the law into their own hands. Eviction and demolition must be carried out strictly through legal mechanisms.
 

Date of Decision: 24 January 2025