STATE OF H P Vs. MUNSHI RAM DECEASED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant Regular Second Appeal filed under S.100 CPC, lays challenge to judgment and decree dated 31.10.2012 passed by learned District Judge, Mandi in Civil Appeal No. 8/2012, titled State of Himachal Pradesh and others vs. Munshi Ram, affirming judgment and decree dated 22.11.2011 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No.1, Mandi, whereby appeal filed by the appellants-defendants (hereinafter, 'defendant') against the respondent-plaintiff (hereinafter, 'plaintiff') came to be dismissed and the suit for injunction having been filed by the plaintiff came to be decreed.

(2.) Facts in brief, as are necessary for the adjudication of the appeal at hand are that the plaintiff filed a civil suit against the defendants averring therein that the plaintiff is owner-in-possession of land denoted by Khewat Khatauni No. 190, min /217 min Khasra No. 8/9/2/1 measuring 0-4-15 Bigha situate in Mohal Kot /275 Illaqua Rajgarh Balh, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi,(hereinafter, 'suit land'). Plaintiff averred in the plaint that the defendants constructed road namely Nalsar-Chunahan through the suit land and for this purpose they had taken possession of the suit land long ago. Plaintiff averred in the plaint that the acquisition proceedings qua the suit land were initiated but the same were allowed to lapse intentionally with the motive to grab the suit land without paying compensation to the plaintiff. Plaintiff though served the defendants under Section 80 CPC but no steps, if any, ever came to be taken by the defendants either to initiate acquisition proceedings or pay the compensation to the plaintiff. Since the defendants, despite repeated assurances, failed to pay compensation the plaintiff, he filed suit in question seeking therein relief of mandatory injunction directing the defendants to initiate acquisition proceedings and complete the same within stipulated time.

(3.) Aforesaid claim of the plaintiff came to be refuted by defendants by filing written statement, wherein they, while specifically raising objections of maintainability, cause of action, estoppel, non-joinder & mis-joinder of necessary parties and limitation, fairly admitted the factum with regard to construction of road through the suit land in the year 1970, but claimed that such road was constructed through the land of plaintiff with his consent and permission. Defendants averred in the written statement that the road was metalled in the years 1973-74 and since then HRTC buses are plying on the same but, at no point of time, plaintiff ever raised objection, if any, qua the use of the road passing through his land. Besides above, defendants claimed that after construction of road, value of land of plaintiff has increased and since at no point of time, plaintiff objected to the construction of road through his land, he is not entitled for the decree as prayed for by him in the instant suit. Defendants also stated before the learned trial Court that the plaintiff never demanded any compensation for the land covered under road and as such, prayer made after an inordinate delay for initiation of acquisition proceedings and payment of compensation otherwise deserves rejection on the ground of limitation.