GIRISH CHANDRA SAHU Vs. NAGENDRANATH MITRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants 1, 2 and 3 have carried this appeal against the affirming judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge of Cuttack in a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction.

(2.) Plaintiffs 1 and 2 and pro forma defendants 4 and 5 were owners of plots Nos. 827 and 828 lying to the immediate north of the Cuttack-Paradeep Road, Plot No. 828 with an area of 2 decimals which lay between plot No. 827 and the road was acquired by the State Government under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 for the purposes of widening the road. With the acquisition of plot No. 828, plot No. 827 became the abutting land. As the level of the said plot was low, plaintiffs decided to fill it up and raise structures thereupon for the purpose of constructing shop rooms. Defendants l to 3 negotiated with the plaintiffs for purchase of the property, but the owners were not willing to part with it as they were of the view that there was Immense potentiality and the same would yield them good return. After acquisition, the Tahsildar granted a temporary lease over a pert of plot No. 828 for agricultural purposes for one year only in favour of the contesting defendants. Defendants 1 to 3 raised kutcha houses on the property in violation of the terms of the lease and even after the period of lease was over, did not surrender the land to the State. The defendants started raising constructions on plot No. 826 in such a manner that the plaintiffs' right to come to the highway from plot No. 827 appeared to be in serious jeopardy. Plaintiffs, therefore, filed the suit for pulling down the structure raised by the defendants which interfered with plaintiffs' right of approach to the highway. They also asked for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from raising any further structures of interfering with their right.

(3.) Defendants 1 to 3 filed a joint written statement and contended that after acquisition of plot No. 826, the same was transferred to the Anchal and the defendants have taken a lease of the plot from the State and are in possession as lessees. They have constructed full-fledged shop rooms and are in possession of the same. The construction does not affect access from plot No. 827. As a matter of fact, there was no such passage over plot No. 828. Plaintiffs' right, if any, on plot No, 828 stood extinguished as a result of acquisition. The other defendants did not contest and were set ex parte.