In Brief
The plaintiff purchased agricultural land in 1995 and alleged the defendants had illegally encroached on a portion of it. The lower courts dismissed his suit, finding the defendants were in rightful occupation. However, when the High Court appointed a surveyor in the second appeal, the measurement revealed the defendants occupied 38 acres—significantly more than their sale deeds authorized. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred by not deciding the substantial question of law it had framed based on the surveyor's findings. The case was remanded for the High Court to specifically address whether the mismatch between the defendants' claimed area and occupied area constituted illegal encroachment.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.