MANOHAR DASS Vs. AGRO IND PACKAGING IND LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment as they arise out of the same judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court in a suit instituted by the appellant in RFA No. 353 of 2006. The appellant therein instituted suit for recovery of Rs. 8,76,000/- alongwith interest on the allegations that he is owner in possession of land comprised in Khasra No. 550 to 554 situated at mauja Ghonda, Tehsil Kotkhai, District Shimla. He pleads that his forefathers had constructed a Bund (a dam) on the perennial source of water i.e. Ghagaoti river to irrigate their lands and two Gharats (water mills) were built by them on Khasra No. 550. These Gharats were used to run on the water released from the dam. They were used for grinding wheat, corn etc.

(2.) In 1989 the defendant set up a manufacturing plant for corrugated card board cartons near the property of the plaintiff. They approached the plaintiff for permission to divert water from the Bund through Khasra No. 555 and asked for permission for construction of desiliting and sedimentation tanks and to carry water from the tanks in GI pipes through the land of plaintiff in Khasra No. 554 to their factory where it would be used in the manufacturing process. The plaintiff submits that it was agreed to between the parties that sufficient water would be left for him to irrigate his lands and permanent employment would be given to one of his sons. In addition, he would be compensated for the damage caused to his land, fruit plants and water mills etc. In case of the defendant not complying with any of these conditions, it was agreed that permission granted by the plaintiff could be withdrawn by him.

(3.) After the defendant had constructed the tanks etc. laid the pipes and also diverted the water, it refused to honour the commitments made to the plaintiff. Subsequently, the defendant had filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against the plaintiff in the Court of Sub Judge, Theog for grant of injunction restraining the plaintiff from interfering in the free flow of water and its utilization by the plaintiff. The suit was dismissed and an appeal preferred before the learned Additional District Judge, Shimla. During the pendency of this appeal, a compromise Ext.P3 was entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant. It was agreed therein that the land of the plaintiff including the water tanks used for storing the water of the dam would be acquired by the defendant herein and the plaintiff would be paid compensation for damage to the land and crops etc. All suits etc. would be deemed to be withdrawn. Ext.P3 contains the details of the terms of the compromise.