(1.) Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by both the learned courts below, the State has filed the instant appeal.
(2.) The plaintiffs/respondents filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction and also sought damages to the tune of Rs.1,53,000/ from the defendant State. It was Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ?Yes averred that the plaintiffs and proforma defendant No.6 were the co owners in possession of the land comprised in Khasra No.32, Khata/Khatauni No. 85/90, measuring 4 1 bighas, whereas plaintiff No.2 was the exclusive owner in possession of the land comprised in Khasra No. 259/45, Khata/Khatauni No. 69/74, measuring 7 6 bighas. It was averred that the Gurudwara, which had been constructed by land to the forefathers of the plaintiffs, was situated over the suit and in possession of the plaintiffs and proforma defendant No.6 and around the Gurudwara, there was a boundary wall of 15 feet height and stair case to the Gurdwara, which had been illegally demolished by the defendant State by use of excavating machines.
(3.) The suit was resisted and contested by the defendant State by filing written statement, wherein apart from taking various preliminary objections, it was averred that adjoining to the suit land, there existed 'Sarak Gair Mumkin Rasta" (public path), which was owned and possessed by the State. It was averred that under "Sampurna Grameen Rojgar Yojna" on the recommendations of S.D.C, Member, Auhar, a sum of Rs.40,000/ was sanctioned for construction of a link road from 'Raipaid to Village Ropa. The aforesaid road was to be constructed over Khasra No. 30 by the Gram Panchayat, however the Gram Panchayat conveyed its incapacity to construct the aforesaid road and gave no objection certificate for the work to be carried out by Yuvak Mandal, Auhar, who, in turn, demolished part of the wall as also path without consent of the concerned authority, which led to cancellation of the agreement w.e.f. 4.8.2003.