A long-running land dispute from Haridwar finally reached its legal end this week, with the Supreme Court dismissing an appeal by two landowners who had sought the removal of a boundary wall built by Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (BHEL). The Court ruled that when ownership and possession themselves are under serious dispute, a simple injunction suit is not enough - parties must seek proper remedies like possession or declaration of title.
The verdict brings clarity to a common but often misunderstood area of property law: when can courts order removal of constructions, and when must parties first settle who really owns the land?
Read also:- Supreme Court Cracks Down on Campus Deaths, Makes FIR Mandatory in Student Suicide Cases
Background of the Case
The case dates back to the early 1990s. Sanjay Paliwal and another partner of a real estate firm claimed they had bought a 15-biswa parcel of land in Haridwar through a registered sale deed in 1992. According to them, this land had access to a public road, which was crucial for its use.
Trouble began when BHEL constructed a boundary wall along the roadside. The plaintiffs alleged that this wall blocked their only approach to the road. They approached the trial court seeking a mandatory injunction-a court order directing BHEL to remove the wall.
Initially, the courts sided with the landowners. Both the trial court and the first appellate court accepted their claim and ordered the wall’s removal.
But the story took a sharp turn when BHEL moved the Uttarakhand High Court.
High Court’s Intervention
The High Court overturned the earlier rulings. It held that the case was not just about a wall-it was really about who owned the land and who possessed it.
The judges pointed out three serious problems:
- There was a cloud over title-the sale deed involved a tenant and a co-owner, raising doubts about how much ownership could legally be transferred.
- There was no clear proof that the wall stood on the exact land claimed by the plaintiffs.
- Most importantly, if the wall amounted to trespass, the proper remedy was a suit for possession, not just an injunction to remove the structure.
On these grounds, the High Court dismissed the suit entirely.
What the Supreme Court Examined
Hearing the appeal, the Supreme Court closely examined whether the High Court was right to reject the injunction suit.
The bench led by Justice Aravind Kumar noted that this was not a case of a simple obstruction. Instead, it involved:
- A serious dispute over ownership,
- Rival claims of possession, and
- Uncertainty about the exact identity of the land.
Read also:- Supreme Court Restores Life Term in Himachal Burn Case, Backs Dying Declaration to Overturn Acquittal
The Court relied heavily on settled legal principles that draw a line between two kinds of cases:
- Where possession is clear and only interference is complained of - injunction can help.
- Where both title and possession are disputed - parties must seek stronger remedies like declaration of title and recovery of possession.
Court’s Key Observations
The bench made it clear that courts cannot grant demolition orders when the foundation of ownership itself is shaky.
In firm words, the judges observed,
“When there is a serious dispute as to title, possession and even identity of the land, a suit for injunction simpliciter cannot be treated as an effective remedy.”
The Court explained that under Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act, an injunction must be refused when an equally effective remedy-such as a suit for possession-is available.
It also agreed with the High Court that,
“It is strange how a decree for mandatory injunction was granted without any cogent proof of where exactly the disputed wall stood.”
Read also:- No Possession, No Extra Stamp Duty: SC Clarifies Law on Agreements to Sell Under AP Stamp Act
Final Decision
After reviewing the entire record, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s judgment and dismissed the appeal.
The Court concluded that:
- The earlier trial court rulings suffered from serious legal errors.
- The plaintiffs should have filed a proper suit for possession instead of only asking for removal of the wall.
- The High Court acted correctly within its powers in setting aside the injunction.
With this, the legal battle that began more than three decades ago finally came to an end, with BHEL retaining its boundary wall and the plaintiffs left without relief.
Case Title: Sanjay Paliwal & Another vs Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd.
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 6075 of 2016
Decision Date: January 15, 2026
