BADRU Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff/appellant herein (for short "the plaintiff") instituted Civil Suit bearing No. 221/1 of 2013, before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Solan, claiming therein rendition of a decree of pecuniary damages quantified in a sum of Rs.12,50,000.00.

(2.) When the instant appeal came up for admission before this Court on 2/3/2021, this Court admitted the appeal, on the hereinafter extracted substantial questions of law:-

(3.) The construction of pump house on the suit khasra numbers by the defendants, is, not contested by the latter. The afore construction occurred in the year 1980-1981. In contemporaneity to the raising of construction of pump house, the plaintiff, though, did not mete any scribed consent to the defendants. However, he also did not deter or forbade the defendants, through his seeking an interim injunction, from the Civil Court concerned, from theirs constructing a pump house on the suit khasra numbers. Even though, the afore may not constitute any waiver or abandonment, on the part of the plaintiff, to, receive compensation in accordance with law, from the statutory authority concerned, as, contemplated in the Land Acquisition Act. However, the afore specific contemplation encapsulated in a special legislation appertaining to acquisition of land, utilized for construction of pump house, by the defendants hence in the year 1980-1981, became enjoined to be strived to be meted compliance by the plaintiff, through his encapsulating in the plaint, relief for mandatory injunction seeking therethrough the making of an injunction, upon, the defendants to ensure the issuance of a notification, under the relevant statute, and, thereafter for compensation becoming assessed vis-a-vis the plaintiff's land utilized for the afore purpose. Apparently, the afore relief of mandatory injunction is not claimed in the Civil Suit. The effect of the afore omission, is that the suit for recovery of pecuniary damages, quantified in a sum of Rs.12,50,000.00 was amenable for being dismissed as the afore legal recoursing rather constituted the apt statutory remedies available to the plaintiff. Resultantly, omission on the part of the plaintiff to recourse the afore specific statutory remedies, does for reiteration, bring the causality of dismissal of his suit, as, aptly done by both the Courts below.