Mehar Singh vs Union of India and Others

L.N. Mittal, J.

CM No. 2470.C of 2012

Although strictly speaking, reasons mentioned in the application are not sufficient to condone the delay of 189 days in filing the appeal, yet adopting liberal approach, the said delay is condoned. The application stands allowed accordingly.

RSA No. 942 of 2012

Plaintiff Mehar Singh having been non-suited by both the courts below has filed this second appeal.

Case of the plaintiff-appellant is that he had 1/6th share in land measuring 23 kanals 19 marlas which has been acquired by official defendants. Private defendant No. 5 had 5/6th share therein. Compensation of the acquired land was paid accordingly to plaintiff and defendant No. 5. However, compensation of fruit trees was to be assessed and paid later on. The entire compensation amount of trees has since been paid to defendant No. 5 by official defendants No. 1 to 4. The plaintiff in the suit sought recovery of Rs. 1,58,715/- being the compensation amount of his 1/6th share.

Defendants resisted the suit and controverted the plaint averments. Acquisition of the land was admitted. However, entitlement of the plaintiff to the suit amount was denied. Defendant No. 5 claimed to have purchased specific part of the acquired land and so also the plaintiff.

Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Pathankot vide judgment and decree dated 19.1.2009 dismissed the plaintiff''s suit. First appeal preferred by the plaintiff has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur vide judgment and decree dated 11.5.2011. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff has filed this second appeal.

I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file.

Admittedly the plaintiff had earlier filed a suit for injunction seeking prohibitory as well as mandatory injunction on the same issue. The said suit was dismissed. Consequently, the instant second suit is barred under Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The instant suit is also barred by limitation. Compensation amount was disbursed to defendant No. 5 on 07.4.1993 whereas the instant suit was filed on 5.5.2000 i.e. after seven years although the limitation period was three years.

In addition to the aforesaid, the plaintiff had remedy of agitating his claim under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and therefore, the civil suit is also barred in view of the said remedy provided in the special Act. For the reasons aforesaid, I find that the plaintiff has been rightly non-suited by the courts below. The instant second appeal is completely meritless. No question of law much less substantial question of law arises for adjudication in this second appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed in limine.