STATE OF H.P. Vs. JODHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dtd. 31/8/2022, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, Camp at Bilaspur, H.P., (learned First Appellate Court), vide which the appeal filed by the appellants (defendants before the learned Trial Court) was dismissed and the judgment and decree dtd. 18/12/2020, passed by learned Civil Judge, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, H.P. (learned Trial Court) was affirmed. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience).

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the plaintiffs filed a civil suit before the learned Trial Court seeking declaration that they are recorded owners in possession of the land comprised in Khata/Khatauni No. 12/12 min, Khasra No. 136, measuring 13-14 bigha, situated at village Charan, Pargna Rattanpur, Tehsil Sadar, District Bilaspur, H.P., (hereinafter referred as the suit land), and for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to acquire the suit land and in case of non-acquisition to deliver the vacant possession of the suit land by restoring the same to its original condition. It was asserted that the plaintiffs are the owners of the suit land. The defendants utilized the suit land for the construction of the Deoth-Lag Ghat-Jamli link road in the year 1980 after assuring the plaintiffs to pay adequate compensation. Lands of Surjan Ram and Chet Ram were acquired by the defendants for the construction of the aforesaid road vide Award No. 1/1987. The plaintiffs approached the defendants for the acquisition of the land. They even served a legal notice under Sec. 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure upon the defendants but in vain. Hence, the suit was filed to seek the relief mentioned above.

(3.) The suit was opposed by filing a written statement, admitting the ownership of the plaintiff. It was also admitted that the Deoth-Lag Ghat-Jamli link road was constructed on the suit land. It was asserted that the road was constructed with the plaintiffs' consent in the year 1987. The plaintiffs donated the suit land to the defendants by their sweet will. It was specifically denied that the defendants assured to compensate the plaintiffs for the use of land by the defendants. It was asserted that the plaintiffs never raised any objection to the plying of the road for the last 35 years. Hence, it was prayed that the suit be dismissed.