High Court Cannot Force Plaintiff To Accept Monetary Compensation Instead Of Removal Of Encroachment Without Prayer: Supreme Court

"High Court, therefore, could not have undertaken such exercise of seeking to compensate one party at the cost of the other without any prayer being made in that regard," Supreme Court, in a significant judgment, held that a High Court cannot compel a plaintiff to accept monetary compensation in lieu of a decree for mandatory injunction for the removal of an encroachment when no such prayer for compensation was ever made.

A bench of Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar observed that substituting a decree of removal with a direction for valuation by an Executing Court, especially without the consent of the decree-holder, constitutes a miscarriage of justice.

The Court set aside the High Court's order which had reversed the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. The bench noted that the High Court had essentially created a "new prayer" for the defendants while disregarding the established rights of the plaintiffs to have illegal constructions removed from their property.

The dispute originated from two civil suits filed by the original plaintiff, Om Parkash, seeking a mandatory injunction for the removal of an illegal wall and a lintel constructed by a school on common open space and the plaintiff's house wall. While the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court decreed the suits in favor of the plaintiff, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, in the second appeal, repeatedly sought to substitute the order of removal with monetary compensation. After a previous remand by the Supreme Court, the High Court again set aside the decrees for removal and directed the Executing Court to assess the value of the construction to be paid to the plaintiff’s legal heirs.

The primary question before the Court was whether the High Court, in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 100 of the CPC, could set aside a decree for mandatory injunction and replace it with monetary compensation without any prayer or consent from the plaintiff. The Court also considered whether an Executing Court could be directed to assess valuation after the underlying decree in favor of the plaintiff had been set aside.

High Court Cannot Grant Relief Not Prayed For By Plaintiff

The Supreme Court observed that the initial suits were specifically for mandatory injunctions seeking the removal of encroachments that interfered with the plaintiff’s right to light, air, and common passage. The bench emphasized that the plaintiff had never sought damages or compensation as an alternative to the removal of the illegal structures.

"There was no prayer whatsoever made by the original plaintiff seeking any damages or compensation from the defendants for the encroachment committed by them," the bench noted. It further held that in the absence of such a prayer or consent from the legal heirs, the High Court could not compel them to accept money in exchange for their property rights.

Executing Court Cannot Act Once Underlying Decree Is Set Aside

The bench pointed out a significant procedural flaw in the High Court's approach. By reversing the decree for mandatory injunction, the High Court effectively left the Executing Court with no decree to execute. The Court noted that directing an Executing Court to then assess the value of the "offending wall" was an exercise unsupported by any legal framework.

"Once the decrees passed by the Trial Court in favour of the plaintiff were set aside, there would be no occasion for the Executing Court to proceed with the execution proceedings since there would be no decree holding the field for being executed," the judgment stated. The Court clarified that such a course of action finds no support under Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Mandatory Requirement Of Section 100 CPC Ignored

The Supreme Court expressed dissatisfaction that the High Court had failed to properly frame and adjudicate upon "substantial questions of law" as required under Section 100 of the CPC. Although the High Court referred to certain questions urged by the defendants, it did not treat them as substantial questions of law before setting aside the original decrees.

"It is, thus, clear that without an available question of law for consideration and also by making out a new prayer, the decrees passed in favour of the original plaintiff have been set aside," the bench observed. The Court held that forcing the legal heirs to accept monetary relief resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the common judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The matter has been remanded to the High Court for fresh consideration of the Second Appeals on their own merits, strictly in accordance with Section 100 of the CPC. Given that the appeals date back to 2008, the Supreme Court requested the High Court to dispose of the matter expeditiously.

Date of Decision: June 19, 2026