STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. CHANDERVIR SINGH NEGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dtd. 9/8/2019 passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla passed in Regular Second Appeal No.270 of 2007 by which the High Court has allowed the said appeal and has quashed and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court dismissing the suit and consequently decreeing the suit directing the appellant herein to initiate the acquisition proceedings qua the land of the plaintiff as mentioned in the plaint as well as the order dismissing the review application preferred by the appellant herein, the State of Himachal Pradesh and others have preferred the present appeals.

(2.) That the respondent herein original plaintiff instituted the suit before the learned Trial Court for declaration, mandatory inunction and seeking direction to the appellants herein original defendants to initiate and complete the acquisition proceedings in respect of the land of the plaintiff and damage to his fruit bearing trees. According to the plaintiff the appellants herein original defendant nos. 1, 2 & 3 without complying with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, constructed a road known as "TikkariLarotBodra Kwar road" on the land of the plaintiff, but no compensation was paid to the plaintiff. The fruit bearing plants were also damaged.

(3.) We have gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court as well as the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court confirmed by the First Appellate Court. We have also considered the deposition of the plaintiff witnesses which were elaborately considered by the learned Trial Court. From the deposition of the plaintiff witnesses it can be seen that the plaintiff and other witnesses specifically admitted that the land in question on the land of the plaintiff was constructed in the year 1987. The plaintiff witnesses have also admitted that the retaining wall was constructed on the land of the plaintiff in the year 1987. Even according to the plaintiff and his witnesses the fruit trees were damaged/destroyed in the year 1987. Even the cause of action pleaded in the suit was construction of road in the year 1987. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances when the learned Trial Court held that the suit was barred by limitation considering Articles 58 and 72 of the Limitation Act and when the same was confirmed by the First Appellate Court, the High Court ought not to have interfered with the said findings of facts in exercise of powers under Sec. 100 of the CPC.