JIWAT RAM Vs. M/S BHARTI TELENET LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant petition filed under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against order dated 15.3.2018 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Anni, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, in CMA No. 8-6/2018 in Civil Suit No. 33-1/2009, titled Jiwat Ram vs. M/s Bharti Telenet Ltd. and others, whereby an application filed by the petitioner-plaintiff (hereinafter, 'plaintiff') under Order XVIII, rules 17 and 17A of the Code of Civil Procedure, came to be dismissed.

(2.) For having a bird's eye view of the matter, necessary facts as emerge from the record are that the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration against the respondents/defendants (hereinafter, 'defendants') for declaration that the mutual agreements/lease deeds (if any) executed by defendants Nos. 7 and 8 in favour of defendants Nos. 1 to 5 authorising them to use and occupy the suit land as comprised in Khewat Khatauni No. 463/481, Khasra No. 297, situate in Village and Post Office Kandagai, Phati Biungal, Kothi Sirigarh, Tehsil Anni, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, for installation and erecting TVS Towers/ Cellular Towers are null and void and further for restraining defendants No.1 to 7 from further changing the nature and character of the suit land by installing any other new TVS tower over the suit land to improve and widen their network services with consequential relief of mandatory injunction directing defendants Nos. 1 to 5 to remove the TVS Towers (Cellular Towers) from the suit land and to demolish entire superstructure raised and affixed on the above land at their own cost and expenses.

(3.) Plaintiff averred in the plaint that he has purchased the entire property/land with orchards etc. from Shri Devi Singh (previous owner) through a registered sale deed and in this regard, mutation of sale No. 2120 stands duly attested and sanctioned in his favour and as such, he is lawful owner with possession of the suit land, as delivered to him by the original owner on the spot. Plaintiff averred that Shri Devi Singh had engaged his neighbourer to look after and manage the affairs of his land and orchard as he could not maintain the land and orchard on account of his Government service, however, defendants Nos. 1 and 2 taking undue advantage of absence of Shri Devi Singh, started leveling and developing the site for laying TVS towers on the land. Shri Devi Singh after having been informed by his well-wisher, reached the site and found that the TVS towers had been erected. Manager of defendants Nos. 6 and 7 deployed on the spot showed ignorance and inability with regard to authorization to install the TVS towers and other equipments over the land of Devi Singh, as such, Devi Singh was left with no other option but to serve the defendants with legal notice but since no response was received from the defendants, suit was filed.