MANI RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUIT filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed by the trial Court vide judgement and decree dated 27.11.2012. Appeal preferred against the said decree failed, and was dismissed on 04.09.2013 by the first appellate Court. This is how, plaintiffs are before this Court in this Regular Second Appeal. Parties to the lis, hereinafter, would be referred to by their original positions in the suit.

(2.) IN short, in a suit filed by the plaintiffs, they prayed for a declaration that defendants had constructed Kharkheri Minor in the land of the plaintiffs, comprised in khasra numbers depicted in the plaint, measuring 21K -10M, without affording any compensation. Therefore, the plaintiffs were entitled to payment of compensation in lieu of the land that was used by the defendants for construction of Kharkheri Minor along with interest @24% per annum. It was averred that the plaintiffs happened to be the owners of the land measuring 21K -10M, situated in village Kharkheri, Tehsil Siwani, District Bhiwani. It was maintained that the defendants had constructed Kharkheri Minor in the land of the plaintiffs without affording any compensation. Though, plaintiffs approached the defendants several times for payment of compensation but to no avail. So much so, defendants were served with a notice under Section 80 CPC on 24.04.2008, but yet no compensation was afforded to the plaintiffs. Thus, the suit.

(3.) IN defence, it was pleaded, inter alia, that the farmers/beneficiaries of the Minor had approached the government to construct a Minor near their fields as they were solely dependant on rainfall for irrigation purposes. Resultantly, the government constructed the Minor preceded by acquisition of land, in consonance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'). A notification under Section 17(4) read with Clause(e) of the Act was published on 19.04.1978, followed by a notification under Section 6 of the Act, that was published on 27.06.1978. It was maintained that land of the plaintiffs was acquired and the compensation was duly paid to them. Therefore, plaintiffs were not entitled for any compensation least any interest thereto. Further, plaintiffs never approached the defendants for payment of any compensation as was being claimed. Accordingly, defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit.