Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Public Use of Village Well, Dismisses Karam Singh’s Second Appeal at HighCourt Chandigarh RSA.

Key Rules & Scope- Second Appeal

Introduction

Public access to traditional village water sources can become a subject of dispute when private individuals claim ownership over the land on which such facilities are situated. In these cases, courts may be required to examine historical use, revenue records, site plans, local inspection reports and oral evidence to determine whether the disputed property is public or private.

In Karam Singh v. Raj Kumar and Others, the Punjab and Haryana High Court considered a dispute concerning a well situated in the Abadi Deh of village Tundla. The plaintiffs had sought a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from blocking the well and encroaching upon its adjoining site.

The appellant claimed that his ancestors had constructed the well on their own land for private use. However, the trial court and the first appellate court rejected this claim and granted the injunction.

On 24 September 2026, Justice Deepak Gupta dismissed the regular second appeal, holding that no substantial question of law arose for consideration. The High Court also rejected the argument that Section 13 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, barred the civil court from entertaining the suit.

The judgment highlights the importance of evidence in disputes involving public-use facilities and explains why the statutory exclusion of civil court jurisdiction cannot be invoked mechanically in every dispute concerning property alleged to be public or common land.

Case Details

• Case Title: Karam Singh v. Raj Kumar and Others
• Case Number: RSA-987-2022 (O&M)
• Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh
• Date of Decision: 24 September 2026
• Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta
• Nature of Proceedings: Regular Second Appeal
• Relevant Legislation: Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961
• Main Issues: Civil court jurisdiction, public character of a village well, permanent injunction and the scope of interference in a regular second appeal.
• Final Outcome: Appeal dismissed.

Also Read- RSA Review Application- Chandigarh HighCourt

Background of the Dispute

The respondents, who were the plaintiffs before the courts below, asserted that the disputed well was a public well situated in the Abadi Deh of village Tundla.

According to their case, the well had been used by village inhabitants for a long period for various purposes, including:

• Drawing water for domestic use.
• Bathing and other household purposes.
• Watering cattle.
• Use during auspicious occasions and festivals.

The plaintiffs also stated that members of the Ramdasia community had traditionally used the well.

They alleged that the defendants had attempted to obstruct access to the well and encroach upon the adjoining site. Consequently, they instituted a suit seeking a permanent injunction to restrain such interference.

Karam Singh, defendant No. 1, contested the suit. His case was that the well had been constructed by his ancestors on their own land for private use and had never been a public well.

The dispute therefore required the courts to examine the competing claims regarding the nature and location of the property.

Findings of the Trial Court

After considering the site plans, photographs and oral evidence, the trial court found insufficient evidence to establish that the disputed site formed part of the appellant’s private property.

The court also considered the existence of an electricity transformer at the site and the absence of an established boundary connecting the well to the appellant’s residential property.

The trial court accepted the plaintiffs’ case and decreed the suit for permanent injunction.

This decision was subsequently affirmed by the first appellate court.

Also Read-HighCourt RSA-Suit for Possession by way of Pre-Emption

What Did the First Appellate Court Observe?

The first appellate court independently re-examined the evidence and took into account several relevant circumstances.

1. Revenue Records Described the Property as Abadi Deh

The Jamabandi described the property as Abadi Deh. The court considered this entry alongside the other evidence concerning the location and character of the site.

2. The Well Was Near a Public Street

The Local Commissioner’s report and site plan reflected the existence of a chowk and the proximity of the well to a public street.

These circumstances supported the plaintiffs’ case regarding the public character of the disputed location.

3. The Electricity Transformer Was a Relevant Circumstance

The appellant had admitted that an electricity transformer had existed near the site for a considerable period. Applications seeking its removal were made only after the institution of the suit.

The appellate court considered this circumstance along with the other evidence.

4. Oral Evidence Supported the Plaintiffs’ Case

The testimony of the plaintiffs’ witnesses, PW1 and PW2, concerning the public nature and use of the well was corroborated by PW3, the village Lambardar.

After examining the evidence collectively, the first appellate court upheld the finding that the well was public and had not been established to be part of the appellant’s private residential property.

Argument Before the High Court: Did the Civil Court Have Jurisdiction?

One of the principal arguments advanced by the appellant concerned Section 13 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961.

The appellant contended that the civil court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of the statutory bar under this provision.

Section 13 excludes civil court jurisdiction in matters falling within the exclusive domain of the authorities constituted under the 1961 Act. This includes questions concerning whether land is Shamlat Deh and whether such land vests or does not vest in the Gram Panchayat.

However, the High Court explained that the mere assertion that a property is public or common land does not automatically bring every dispute concerning that property within the statutory bar.

The court must examine the actual nature of the controversy and the relief sought.

Why Was the Civil Suit Maintainable?

The High Court noted the following features of the case:

• The suit was filed against private defendants.
• The plaintiffs sought to restrain obstruction of the well and encroachment upon the adjoining site.
• No declaration of title in favour of the Gram Panchayat was sought.
• No order or action of the Collector, Commissioner or Gram Panchayat under the 1961 Act was challenged.
• The Gram Panchayat had been impleaded as defendant No. 4 and had proceeded ex parte.
• The courts below had not adjudicated any competing claim of title between the appellant and the Gram Panchayat under the 1961 Act.

The central question was whether the appellant could obstruct the well by treating it as his exclusive private property.

The High Court therefore concluded that the jurisdictional objection did not raise a substantial question of law in the facts of the case.

Why Section 13 Cannot Be Applied Mechanically

The Court explained that the purpose of Section 13 is to prevent civil courts from deciding matters that the statute has expressly entrusted to the designated statutory authorities.

However, that exclusion cannot automatically be extended to every dispute involving property described as public or common.

Where the relief sought does not require adjudication of a question falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the statutory authorities, the ordinary jurisdiction of the civil court cannot be ousted merely by invoking Section 13.

The appellant relied on Lachman Singh v. Gulzari, reported in 1984 PLR 121. The High Court found that the decision did not advance the appellant’s case because the controversy in that matter involved the determination of rights under the village common lands legislation, whereas the present suit did not seek a declaration of ownership or vesting in the Panchayat.

The distinction between a statutory title dispute and a civil injunction suit was therefore central to the Court’s reasoning.

Can a High Court Reassess Evidence in a Regular Second Appeal?

The appellant’s second argument was that the plaintiffs had failed to establish that the well was public property and that the injunction should not have been granted.

The High Court treated this argument as an attempt to reopen factual findings already recorded by both courts below.

The Court reiterated that a regular second appeal is not ordinarily an opportunity to reassess evidence simply because one party disagrees with the conclusions reached by the trial court and the first appellate court.

Interference may be warranted where concurrent findings are shown to be perverse, based on no evidence, or the result of ignoring material evidence or applying an incorrect legal test.

In the present case, the High Court found no such defect.

Evidence Considered by the Courts

The concurrent findings were based on several forms of evidence, including:

• Oral testimony of the plaintiffs’ witnesses.
• Testimony of the village Lambardar.
• The Jamabandi describing the property as Abadi Deh.
• Site plans and the Local Commissioner’s report.
• Photographs of the disputed location.
• The existence of the electricity transformer near the well.
• The absence of convincing evidence connecting the well to the appellant’s private residential premises.

The Court observed that the plaintiffs had discharged their initial burden through positive oral and documentary evidence. The appellant had also produced witnesses and documents, but the courts below had preferred the plaintiffs’ version after considering the entire material.

The High Court found no perversity, misreading of evidence or material illegality that would justify interference in the second appeal.

Final Decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court

After considering both principal arguments, the High Court held that no substantial question of law arose for consideration.

The Court concluded that:

1. The objection under Section 13 of the 1961 Act did not establish a bar to the civil suit in the circumstances of the case.
2. The challenge to the public character of the well essentially sought reconsideration of concurrent findings of fact.
3. No perversity, misreading of evidence or material illegality had been demonstrated.
4. The judgments and decrees of the courts below did not warrant interference.

Accordingly, the regular second appeal was dismissed on 24 September 2026.

The dismissal left the permanent injunction granted by the courts below undisturbed.

Also Read-Will Dispute in Chandigarh HighCourt RSA (Appeal)

Legal Significance of the Judgment

1. Public-Use Disputes Must Be Examined on Their Facts

The judgment illustrates the importance of examining the location, use and surrounding circumstances of a disputed property.

Revenue records, local inspection reports, site plans, photographs and oral testimony may collectively assist courts in determining whether a claimed private property has been established as such.

No single circumstance should be treated as a universal rule for deciding the character of every village well.

2. A Jurisdictional Bar Depends on the Nature of the Dispute

The decision highlights that a statutory bar on civil court jurisdiction must be applied with reference to the actual relief sought and the question requiring determination.

A dispute seeking an injunction against private individuals is not necessarily equivalent to a proceeding seeking a declaration of title or a determination of vesting under the village common lands legislation.

3. Concurrent Findings of Fact Receive Deference

The judgment reinforces the limited scope of a regular second appeal when the trial court and the first appellate court have independently considered the evidence and reached the same conclusion.

A party seeking interference must establish a legally recognised defect, such as perversity or material misreading of evidence, rather than merely requesting another assessment of the facts.

4. A Permanent Injunction Can Protect Against Obstruction

In this case, the relief sought was directed against obstruction of the disputed well and encroachment upon the adjoining site.

The judgment demonstrates the role of civil injunction proceedings in protecting the use of property where the legal requirements for such relief are established.

Practical Takeaways for Village Residents and Property Owners

Disputes concerning village wells, pathways, common spaces and other traditionally used facilities can involve competing claims of public use and private ownership.

The following practical steps may be useful in comparable disputes:

• Preserve relevant revenue records, including Jamabandi entries.
• Collect available site plans, photographs and reports prepared by a Local Commissioner.
• Identify witnesses who can speak to the history and nature of the property’s use.
• Document any alleged obstruction or encroachment.
• Examine the precise relief required before deciding which legal forum is appropriate.
• Consider whether the dispute requires adjudication of title or vesting under a special statute, or whether it concerns an injunction against private interference.
• Obtain legal advice before initiating proceedings, particularly where statutory restrictions on civil court jurisdiction may apply.

These are general observations. The appropriate legal remedy depends on the facts, applicable law and nature of the relief sought.

Also Read-Adverse Possession RSA in Chandigarh HighCourt

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

1. What was the judgment in Karam Singh v. Raj Kumar and Others?

The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed Karam Singh’s regular second appeal on 24 September 2026, leaving undisturbed the injunction granted by the courts below concerning the disputed village well.

2. Where was the disputed well located?

The well was situated in the Abadi Deh of village Tundla.

3. Why did the plaintiffs claim that the well was public?

They claimed that village inhabitants, particularly members of the Ramdasia community, had used it for a long period for drawing water, domestic purposes, bathing, watering cattle, and use during auspicious occasions and festivals.

4. What was the appellant’s defence?

Karam Singh claimed that his ancestors had constructed the well on their own land for private use and that it was never a public well.

5. Why did the High Court reject the objection under Section 13 of the 1961 Act?

The suit sought an injunction against private defendants to prevent obstruction of the well and encroachment on the adjoining site. It did not seek a declaration of title in favour of the Gram Panchayat or challenge an order passed under the 1961 Act.

6. What evidence supported the finding that the well was public?

The courts considered the Jamabandi, site plans, the Local Commissioner’s report, photographs, oral testimony and evidence concerning the transformer near the disputed location.

7. Can concurrent findings of fact be challenged in a regular second appeal?

A regular second appeal does not ordinarily permit a fresh reassessment of evidence. Interference may be justified where the findings are perverse, based on no evidence, or result from ignoring material evidence or applying an erroneous legal test.

8. What was the final outcome?

The High Court found that no substantial question of law arose and dismissed the regular second appeal, leaving the permanent injunction granted by the courts below undisturbed.

Conclusion

The judgment in Karam Singh v. Raj Kumar and Others provides a useful illustration of how courts examine disputes concerning the public or private character of a village facility.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld the concurrent findings that the disputed well was public and had not been established to form part of the appellant’s private property. It also clarified that Section 13 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, cannot be invoked mechanically to bar every civil suit concerning property alleged to be public or common land.

By dismissing the regular second appeal, the Court reaffirmed the importance of evidence-based findings and the limited scope of interference with concurrent factual conclusions in second appellate proceedings.

Source: Karam Singh v. Raj Kumar and Others, RSA-987-2022 (O&M), decided on 24 September 2026, Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh.

Disclaimer: This article is for general legal information and educational purposes only. It is based on the uploaded judgment and does not constitute legal advice. The outcome of similar disputes will depend on their specific facts, the relief sought and the applicable law.