(A) Injunction – No injunction against true owner – A person in settled possession can get the possession back if forcibly dispossessed, but he cannot seek an injunction against the true owner. Held: The plaintiffs were not being dispossessed forcibly. Therefore, the injunction could not have been granted to the plaintiffs on the plea that a trespasser cannot be ejected from the land in his/her possession forcibly. The plaintiffs cannot be held entitled to the relief of injunction against the true owner and the learned Courts below had rightly declined the injunction to the plaintiffs. (Para 16, 20, 21)
(B) Jurisdiction of Civil Court – Regularization of encroachment – Claim for regularization of encroachment – Held: The plaintiffs claimed that they are entitled to regularization under the Policy. It was rightly submitted on behalf of the defendants that this is beyond the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. The plaintiffs are free to approach the competent authorities to seek the regularization under any Policy framed by the State Government, however, no such direction can be passed by the Civil Court. (Para 23)
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
2023 STPL(Web) 197 HP
Bhagat Ram & Others Vs. State Of H.P & Others
RSA No. 269 of 2020-Decided on 22-9-2023
https://stpllaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/2023-STPLWeb-197-HP.pdf
