STATE OF U P Vs. INDER CHANDRA RAMOLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first appeal has been preferred by the appellant - State against the judgment and decree dated 03.08.1993 passed by District Judge, Uttarkashi in O.S. No. 18 of 1988 whereby the suit of recovery of Rs. 89,000/ - for mandatory injunction is decreed with costs against the defendant/appellant.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that plaintiffs/respondents asserted that P.W.D., Uttarkashi planned to lay down a road popularly known as Sunargaon Jogat Motor Road. This road had to pass through a portion of plots No. 143, 144, 666, 668 and 670 belonging to the plaintiffs/respondents. The plaintiffs/respondents planted grove of fruit bearing trees namely, mango, guava, chestnut etc. There was certainty that the said road shall be used by public at large and the proposal of laying out road was detrimental because there was every possibility that the persons who would pass through that road could commit theft and crop would be damaged by cattle. Executive Engineer, P.W.D. gave assurance in writing that the portion of the land which would be acquired for the purpose of this alignment of road would not be taken free of cost and adequate compensation would be paid. On the basis of the assurance the plaintiffs/respondents gave their consent in writing on 22.12.1983. The then Executive Engineer vide a specific undertaking dated 18.05.1985 gave clear assurance to the plaintiffs that soon after completion of the work they would proceed to erect protection wall and complete the work of barbed wires fencing also Despite this written assurance no protection wall was erected and fencing work was not done. The plaintiffs could not grow vegetable crop and each year they suffered loss to the extent of Rs. 10,000/ -. The plaintiffs/respondents approached the defendant/appellant to abide by the terms and conditions of the agreement but they continued to prolong the matter on one pretext or the other. Even stones and debris of road was stored over plots No. 144, 145, 146, 147, 637 and 639 and even after completion of the work the same was not removed and due to which the plaintiffs could not raise crop. The plaintiffs/respondent could not irrigate their field because gool was demolished. The officer and officials of P.W.D. did not undo the wrong, hence the suit for mandatory injunction and recovery of damages.

(3.) THE defendant/appellant resisted the suit filed by the plaintiffs. The defendant pleaded that their existed no plot adjoining Khasara Plots No. 66, 668 and 670 which were acquired for laying down the road. The defendant has further alleged that the plots No. 669 and 672 adjoin to plot No. 670 and the same belongs to State of U.P. Plot No. 665 which is adjoining to plot No. 670 also belonged to State of U.P. Under these circumstances there was no occasion for any damages to the fruits and vegetables which the plaintiffs were growing over their own plots. It has also pleaded that the road has been constructed over Khasaras Plot No. 144 and plot No. 143 is situated at a higher level to the extent of 7 ft. from Plot No. 144. Plots No. 145 and 146 are situated at a lower level to the extent of 6 ft. from plot No. 144. In view of this fact there was no necessity for erecting protection wall at both the sides of plot No. 144. The defendant/appellant has also alleged that the suit was filed with false and incorrect allegations, hence it was liable to be dismissed.