DAULATSINHJI SAVANTHSINHJI SOLANKI Vs. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule Mr. Kamal Mehta, learned AGP waives service of Rule for Respondents No. 1 and 2. Respondent No. 3 is ordered to be deleted. With the consent of the learned advocates appearing for the parties, the matter is finally heard and decided.

(2.) The petitioners- original plaintiffs are aggrieved by concurrent judgments and orders of two courts below at interlocutory stage, the two courts have refused to grant injuction in terms of prayer contained in Exhibit-5 of Regular Civil Suit No. 177 of 1993. The plaintiffs sued for declaration and permanent injuntion inter alia contending that they were the owners and occupiers of agricultural lands bearing Survey Number 8, 111; 114, 115, 116, 109, 108 and 165 situated at the outskirts of village Vasana. It was their case that there was already an existing road from village Vasana to Kadodra which was situated on the western side of the aforesaid parcels of land. It was their case that however the Executive Engineer and the State of Gujarat wanted to lay another road with a view to obliging defendant No. 3 and the new proposed road was likely to affect the agricultural lands of the plaintiffs and that without their consent and without acquiring their lands, the Executive Engineer and the State of Gujarat have stated putting up construction of the proposed road. Therefore, they applied for temporary injunction restraining the defendants from putting up or constructing any new road on their parcels of land or from putting up any construction for the purposes of making the road. The learned trial judge directed the defendants to maintain status quo but after hearing both the parties by order dated 5th May, 1995 dismissed the application for injunction holding that the plaintiffs have failed to prove prima facie case and that it was open to the defendants to acquire the land for the proposed road and to construct the road thereafter.

(3.) Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order of the trial court passed below Exhibit-5, the petitioner plaintiff preferred Civil Appeal From Order No. 64 of 1994 in the court of Joint District Judge, Sabarkantha who by the judgment and order dated 30th December, 1995 dismissed the appeal of the plaintiffs and confirmed the order of the trial court whereby the trial court vacated the direction to maintain status quo. The further direction issued by the trial court that the defendants can acquire the land and can thereafter put up construction of road was also vacated by the lower appellate court and the appeal of the plaintiffs thus was dismissed.