Babu Lal vs State of Haryana and another

Amit Raval, J.(Oral) - The appellant-plaintiff is aggrieved of the concurrent findings of facts and law, whereby, suit for declaration and permanent injunction seeking declaration of path of three karam, i.e. 16.5 feet for the un-acquired land of the plaintiff with consequential relief restraining the defendants from raising any construction on the acquired land, has been dismissed.

Mr. Rajat Mor, learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff submits that appellant-plaintiff had owned the land bearing killa nos.23 and 22, out of which 12 kanals 15 marlas was acquired. There was a pucca road which has been acquired and therefore, the declaration was sought. Certain documents could not be placed on record, but however, on two occasions, adjournments have been sought to place on record the same. The plaintiff has been unable to prove the existence of the passage before the acquisition and on acquisition, remaining land has been left un-usable. This fact has not been noticed by both the Courts below and prays for setting aside of judgments and decrees of the Courts below. Thus, there is illegality and perversity in the findings rendered by both the Courts below, much less, substantial question of law arises for adjudication of the present appeal.

I have heard learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff and appraised the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below.

The simpliciter suit for declaration in the absence of mandatory injunction is not maintainable. The relief sought as is not permissible in appeal and remedy for the appellant, if any, is to challenge the same by filing a writ petition. The civil Court does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the merits and demerits of the acquisition of the land acquired under Erstwhile Land Acquisition Act. Moreover, the appellant has failed to prove on record any site plan or aks sijra to prove whether there was a path or not. In my view, onus has not been discharged, in view of the provisions of Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act and rightly so, the Courts below declined the relief as sought for.

In view of the aforementioned observations, I do not intend to differ with the findings rendered by both the Courts below, based upon the appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, much less, no substantial question of law arises for determination of this Court.

No ground for interference is made out.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.