KESHURAM Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff-appellants have directed this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 30th August, 1991 passed by IIIrd Addl. District Judge, Ratlam in Civil Suit No. 25B/88, thereby dismissing plaintiffs' suit for grant of compensation for the damage caused to their agricultural land as also the mango trees standing in the said agricultural land.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that appellant-plaintiffs are the owners and recorded Bhumiswami of the agricultural land situated in village Bargarh, Tehsil Jaora, District Ratlam bearing Survey No. 120/667, Area 0.101 hectare and Survey No. 121, area 2.061, hectares. It is stated in the plaint that on the southern side of the aforesaid agricultural land, three fruit bearing mango trees are standing and owned by the plaintiffs. It is alleged that in 1984, State of M.P. through the P. W.D., District Ratlam started the work of construction of Bargarh-Upparwada road for the use of the-public. The proposed road was constructed near the southern side of the agricultural land held by the plaintiffs. It is stated that during the construction of the said road, the employees of the PWD, Ratlam dug out the soil from the agricultural lands of the plaintiffs by digging pits and tunnels. As a result of digging of the pits and tunnels and taking soil from the agricultural lands of plaintiffs, they caused damage to the roots of the three mango trees standing in the fields of the plaintiffs. The plaintiff objected for the acts of the respondents but they did not stop the work of digging pits and tunnels. The plaintiff ultimately served a notice under Section 80 of C.P.C. on the respondents, claiming Rs. 9,000/- as damage caused to the mango trees and Rs. 44,000/- for the damages caused to the agricultural land of the plaintiffs due to the digging of the pits and tunnels and unauthorisedly taking soil from the plaintiffs agricultural land in the construction of the alleged road. After the expiry of the period of notice, the plaintiffs-appellants have filed suit for the recovery of Rs. 53,000/- by way of damages against the respondents.

(3.) The suit filed by the plaintiffs was resisted on behalf of the respondents on various grounds. It was contended on behalf of the respondents that the alleged pits and tunnels are dug on the land belonging to the State Government. No pits and tunnels have been dug on the agricultural land belonging to the plaintiff. The defendants also denied that by the act of the employees of the defendant-respondents any damage is caused to the mango trees. The defendants also denied that the mango trees are not standing inside the agricultural lands belonging to plaintiffs and prayed for the dismissal of the suit.