UNION OF INDIA Vs. CHANE RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this appeal, the appellants have challenged the judgment and decree dtd. 1/6/2012, passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Manali, District Kullu, H.P., in Civil Suit No.18 of 2009, titled as Chane Ram and others Versus The Secretary Defence, Union of India and others, vide which learned Trial Court decreed the suit filed by the present respondents, to the effect that the plaintiffs were owners of the suit land and were entitled for possession by way of demolition of structure constructed upon the same by the present appellants, as well as judgment and decree passed by the Court of learned District Judge, Kullu, H.P., in Civil Appeal No.20 of 2012, titled as The Secretary Defence Union of India and another Versus Chane Ram and others, decided on 15/1/2013, whereby learned Appellate Court while dismissing the first appeal filed by the present appellants, upheld the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court.

(2.) Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present appeal are that respondents/ plaintiffs (hereinafter to be referred as 'Plaintiffs') filed a suit to the effect that they are owners of the land measuring 0/9/87 hectares being 987/1974 share of land measuring 0/19/74 hectares comprised in khasra Nos.484, 483, 607, 608/1 and 610, kita 6, contained in khata khatauni Nos.139/189 and 190, entered in missal hakiat for the year 2002-03, situated at up-muhal Aleo Phati Vashisht Kothi Jagathsukh, Tehsil Manali, District Kullu, H.P. Defendants were strangers to the suit land, but had occupied the same illegally and forcibly without adopting the procedure for acquisition of the same in the year 1987. Defendants were asked many a times by the plaintiffs to pay compensation or to give back possession of the land, however, defendants neither returned possession of the land to plaintiffs nor they paid any compensation. As per plaintiffs they visited the office of defendants on numerous occasions wherein on certain occasions they were given the assurance that their land will be given in accordance with law, but defendants had failed to do the same. A notice under Sec. 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure was also issued on 20/12/2008 to the defendants, but no reply to the same was filed by them. Accordingly, the suit was filed, praying for the following reliefs:-

(3.) The suit was resisted by the defendants, who took the stand that the land in issue stood acquired somewhere in the year 1965, however, the record of acquisition was not traceable. Defendants denied having encroached upon the land in issue and took the specific stand that the same was acquired in accordance with law. It was further the case of the defendants that they had requested Deputy Commissioner, Kullu, H.P. to provide the notification vide which the land was acquired and had also sought information as to whether the same stood transferred in the name of defendants or not, however, they were informed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate,Manali, vide letter dtd. 8/4/2009 that the notification of acquisition was not available with the said Authority. It was further mentioned in the written statement that while acquiring the land all codal formalities stood fulfilled and compensation was duly paid to the land owners.