When Courts Cannot Impose Monetary Compensation Over Removal of Encroachment – A Legal Analysis

Case Snapshot

• Case Name: Rajat Kumar and Others v. S D Adarsh Jain Kanya Maha Vidyalaya Sadhaura and Others

• Citation: 2026 INSC 648

• Bench: Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar

• Date of Judgment: June 19, 2026

• Area of Law: Civil Law, Property Law, Code of Civil Procedure (Second Appeals & Execution)

Judgment in Brief

The Supreme Court set aside a judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which had reversed a well-reasoned decree for mandatory injunction passed by the Trial Court and affirmed by the First Appellate Court. The High Court had directed the defendants to pay monetary compensation to the plaintiffs in lieu of removing an illegal encroachment, even though the original plaintiff had never prayed for monetary relief. The Supreme Court held that a Court cannot, on its own, convert a decree for mandatory injunction (removal of encroachment) into a decree for monetary compensation, especially when the plaintiff has not consented to such a course. The Court further clarified that such a direction to the Executing Court is legally impermissible, as an executing court cannot create a new relief where no decree exists for execution.

Relevant Facts

The original plaintiff, Om Parkash, filed two civil suits against the defendant-school.

• First Suit (CS No. 426/1996): He sought a mandatory injunction to remove a wall that the defendants had illegally constructed on a common open space beyond his house. He claimed this wall obstructed his right to air, light, and the passage of water. The Trial Court decreed the suit, ordering removal of the wall. The First Appellate Court upheld this decree.

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.