VADODARA DISTRICT PANCHAYAT Vs. UMARAOBIBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been preferred by the appellants herein original defendant challenging judgment and order dated 12.12.1996 passed by the learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Dabhoi in Regular Civil Suit No.420 of 1982 confirmed by the learned Appellate Court vide judgment and order dated 12.08.2009 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.14 of 2007 by which learned Trial Court allowed the suit preferred by the present original plaintiffs.

(2.) Respondent herein original plaintiff instituted Regular Civil Suit No.420 of 1982 in the Court of learned Civil Judge (JD), Dabhoi contending that he is the owner and occupier of Survey No.72 ad measuring 2.00 Acre of Village Vora, Tal. Tilakwads. It was the case of the original plaintiff that road work of Village - Vora was started arbitrarily by the Officers of the Jilla Panchayat, Vadodara and the work started without permission on the road line which is passing through fields of various farmers. It is the case of the original plaintiff that the original defendant has started work on plaintiff's land and due to said work started by the defendants, the plaintiff suffered loss of Rs.1500/-, therefore, the plaintiff filed suit for aforesaid reliefs. Considering documentary evidence on record, learned Trial Court allowed the suit preferred by the original plaintiff. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with judgment and order dated dated 12.12.1996 passed by the learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Dabhoi in Regular Civil Suit No.420 of 1982, the appellants herein preferred appeal being Regular Civil Appeal No.14 of 2007 before the learned Appellate Court. The learned Appellate Court vide judgment and order dated 12.08.2009 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.14 of 2007 confirmed the order passed by the learned Trial Court, hence, present appellants original defendants have preferred present Second Appeal.

(3.) Learned Advocate for the appellants herein original defendants submitted that learned Courts below have erred in not appreciating the fact that the land in question was under acquisition and procedure laid down under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act was followed. It is also submitted that learned Courts below have erred in not appreciating the fact that land was acquired for the purpose of road. It is also submitted that complaint of non payment of compensation made by the respondent cannot be ground to deliver judgment against the appellants.