SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER PWD (CONST) Vs. MANGTU RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Under challenge, in this regular second appeal, is the judgment and decree dated 22.10.2002 vide which the first appellate court affirmed the judgment and decree (dated 14.6.2002) of the trial court, in favour of the plaintiff-respondent.

(2.) The plaintiff had filed a suit for possession of the land, detailed in para No. 1 of the plaint and had also sought the relief of permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from using the land underneath the road and from interfering into the "uprooting" of the road "running over the land in question". In the alternative, he claimed a decree for mandatory injunction, directing the defendants to assess and pay to him, the damages for the user of land, from the date of construction of road till the decision of suit. The trial court declined the relief of possession but granted a decree to the effect that the plaintiff was entitled to get compensation of the land in question, except the land comprised in killa No. 23/1/2 (claim qua which had been relinquished by the plaintiff vide his statement dated 8.6.2002), and directed the defendants to assess and pay the compensation to the plaintiff, within three months.

(3.) The case of plaintiff, as disclosed in the plaint (filed on 11.10.1994), was that he is owner of the land, measuring 13 kanals, detailed in para No. 1 thereof, and he, "has been cultivating the same and has been earning his livelihood since the time of his ancestors." But, on getting his land demarcated, he found that a portion of the Gurgaon - Pataudi road had been laid over his land. He pleaded that the defendants had done so, illegally, unauthorisedly, and without acquiring it under law. In para No. 3 of the plaint, it was pleaded that the land was "snatched" from him, in the year 1951, but he "came to know about this injury caused to him, only on 21.11.1993" when he got his holding (of land) demarcated from the revenue authorities. He, accordingly, sent a notice to the defendants, calling upon them to either restore the possession of land or pay damages from the date of construction of road till the date of payment and also stop the use of land underneath the road. The defendants, however, failed to give the desired relief to him, whereupon he filed a suit against them.