In a landmark verdict that brings finality to a legal battle spanning four decades, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled in favour of a buyer, protecting his possession of a contested plot in Gurugram. The court granted a permanent injunction to Jagdish Lal, setting aside the earlier decisions of two lower courts.
A Four-Decade Legal Odyssey
The dispute revolves around approximately 5 bighas and 18 biswas of agricultural land in Harchandpur village, Gurugram district. The land's journey through legal and revenue channels is complex. Originally owned by a major landholder named Sunheri, it was declared surplus under the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972.
This surplus land was subsequently allotted to three non-permanent tenants: Malhe, Chuni, and Ramji Lal. These allottees later sold the land to Jagdish Lal through registered sale deeds dated May 2, 1986. The revenue records, or mutations, reflecting this transfer were officially sanctioned on June 4, 1986.
The Twist and the Core Legal Principle
Complications emerged when, on July 24, 1986, a prescribed authority exempted a larger parcel of 28 bighas—which included Lal's land—from the surplus pool. Subsequently, in August 1987, the original owner Sunheri sold the same land to other purchasers.
When Lal approached the civil court seeking a permanent injunction to protect his possession, both the trial court (in 1996) and the lower appellate court (in 1999) dismissed his suit. They held that the exemption order had nullified the earlier allotment and, by extension, Lal's purchase.
Justice Mandeep Pannu of the High Court overturned these rulings, emphasizing a fundamental legal distinction. The court clarified that in a suit purely for a permanent injunction, the inquiry is limited to the question of possession, not the validity of title or the correctness of revenue proceedings.
Court's Reasoning and Final Order
The High Court based its decision on concrete revenue records. It noted the jamabandi (land record) of 1984-85 showed the original allottees in possession, and the subsequent mutations were in Jagdish Lal's favour. This created a strong presumption that Lal had continued in peaceful and settled possession.
The court faulted the lower appellate court for overstepping its jurisdiction by delving into the legality of the surplus land proceedings—a matter reserved for revenue authorities. Justice Pannu's judgment firmly stated that the "primary consideration is possession, not title determination."
Allowing Lal's appeal, the High Court decreed his suit for a permanent injunction. It restrains the defendants—the Haryana government and the subsequent purchasers—from interfering with his possession of the land, except through due process of law.
Broader Implications of the Judgment
This ruling powerfully reaffirms a settled legal doctrine: a person in peaceful and settled possession is entitled to protection against unlawful dispossession, even if the title is under dispute. It prevents parties from taking the law into their own hands through force or "self-help."
For Jagdish Lal, who has been litigating since the 1990s, the judgment finally secures the land he purchased nearly 40 years ago. For the public, it reinforces the judiciary's role in protecting settled civil rights and underscores the procedural boundaries between civil and revenue courts.
