RSA No. 502 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- RSA No. 502 of 2008 Date of decision: 20.02.2008 State of Haryana ...Appellant Versus Pala Ram and others ...Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nirmal Yadav -.- Present : Mr. Siddharth Batra, A. A.G. Haryana for the Appellant-State -.- Nirmal Yadav, J. (Oral) This is State's regular second appeal directed against the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below . Succinctly, the plaintiffs/respondents claimed to be the owners in possession of land measuring 5 kanals 5 marlas, comprised in khewat No. 12/98, khatoni No. 140, Rect No. 46, Killa No. 1/1 (3-16), Rect No. 47, Killas No. 5/3 (1-9), situated in the revenue estate of Village Budanpur alias Rukanpur vide jamabandi for the year 1997-98. They came to know about the encroachment of the land by the State Government, when demarcation of the village was carried out . Hence, the present suit was filed. The plea taken by the State Government is that it has become owner of the suit land by way of adverse possession. Both the Courts below, after taking into consideration the facts and evidence on record, have come to the conclusion that the plaintiffs are RSA No. 502 of 2008 2 owners of the land in dispute though the road had been constructed by the State Government over the suit land about 25 years ago. Earlier, the plaintiffs could not know about the said encroachment made by the State Government. It came to their knowledge only when demarcation was done. The State being a welfare State cannot take the plea of adverse possession against its citizens. Moreover, the possession of the appellant-State was not open, hostile and within the knowledge of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs even did not know that their land has been encroached by the State Government. Since the State government has constructed the road over the land belonging to the plaintiffs, they have to award compensation as per the policy of the State Govt., along with other statutory benefits. No ground for interference with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below is made out. No question of law, much less substantial question of law having been arisen, for consideration, in the instant appeal, the appeal is dismissed in limine. However, it is directed that needful be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order by the appellant. (Nirmal Yadav) Judge February 20, 2008 mohan