SOHAN LAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant-plaintiff has filed this regular second appeal challenging judgment and decree dtd. 13/3/2019 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sirsa as well as judgment and decree dtd. 8/1/2020 passed by learned District Judge, Sirsa. Plaintiff - appellant filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining official defendants from interfering into ownership and physical possession of the plaintiff and proforma defendants over land as described in the plaint and from ousting them from the suit property in any manner and also from creating any water course through the suit property and carrying out any act which may amount to interference in the ownership and physical possession of the plaintiff and proforma defendants. Said suit was dismissed by the learned trial Court and plaintiff's appeal was dismissed as well.

(2.) Brief facts as stated in the plaint are that the plaintiff and proforma defendants are owners in possession of the suit property and that they never surrendered possession thereof in favour of any person and are in cultivating possession. It is further pleaded that official defendants wanted to carve out a water course over the suit property illegally, forcibly, without any legal right or authority and that too without awarding any compensation to the plaintiff and proforma defendants. No prior information or notice thereof was ever sent to them. When despite request, said defendants refused to admit the claim of the plaintiff, suit was filed.

(3.) Suit was contested by the official defendants No. 1 to 3. Various preliminary objections were taken in the written statement. Land in question was admitted to be owned and possessed by the plaintiff and proforma defendants. It is stated that the said defendants were only re-modelling/repairing the already existing and running water course in a part of land in killa No. 24 and 25 of Square No. 34 situated in village Panniwala Mota, Tehsil and District Sirsa. It is stated that the running water course was carved out many years ago on specific request/demand of landowners, including predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff. Water course is stated to have been running and in existence for last over twenty years and it falls within the definition of the permanent water course. Water course falls in Chak of outlet RD 91095/LMMK distributory and the same is duly reflected in the site plan maintained by the department. Due to lapse of time, condition of water course deteriorated, therefore, existing repair and re-modelling of the same is necessary for better irrigation and in the interest of the farmers. It is denied that there is any attempt to encroach upon the land of the plaintiff and proforma defendants or that any new water course is being carved out or dug. Jurisdiction of the civil Court to entertain and decide the case was also disputed. Proforma defendants No. 4 to 9 did not appear and were proceeded exparte.