AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sandeep Sharma, J
By way of this application, a prayer has been made by the applicants for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
Reply to the application stands filed.
Having heard learned Additional Advocate General as well as learned Counsel for non-applicant No. 1 and having perused the averments made in the application as well as reply filed thereto, this application is allowed and delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
Be registered.
With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, the appeal is being disposed of at this stage itself.
By way of this regular second appeal, the appellants-State have assailed the judgment and decree passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Court No. 2) Sundernagar, District Mandi, passed in Civil Suit No. 106 of 2015, titled as Gian Chand vs. Secretary, HPPWD and another, in terms whereof, the suit for mandatory injunction filed by the plaintiff was decreed as well as the judgment and decree passed by learned Appellate Court in Civil Appeal No. 56 of 2019, titled as the State of H.P. and others vs. Sh. Gian Chand and others, in terms whereof, the appeal filed by the State against the judgment and decree passed by learned Trial Court was dismissed.
Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present appeal are that Sh. Gian Chand had filed a suit for mandatory injunction inter alia on the ground that he alongwith proforma defendants was owner in possession of the suit land measuring 1-2-7 bighas, situated in Mohal Kunaila/53, Tehsil Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P. which land was utilized by the State for the purpose of construction of Samoun-Piplughat road without the consent and permission of the plaintiff and without acquiring the land in accordance with law and without compensating the land owners. It was in this background that the suit for mandatory injunction against the defendants stood filed by the plaintiff.
The stand of the defendants before the learned Trial Court was that the land, which was utilized for the purpose of construction of road in question, was utilized with the consent of the plaintiff and therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled for any relief as was being claimed in the civil suit.
In terms of the judgment and decree passed by learned Trial Court, the suit of the plaintiff was decreed in the following terms:-
“This suit is coming on this day for disposal before me, Anish Kumar Civil Judge Court No.Il, Sundernagar, District Mandi H.P. in the presence of Sh. Vikash Sharma, Ld Advocate, for the plaintiff, Ms Paridhi Thakur Ld. ADA for the defendants and Sh. Ajay Rana, Ld Adv. for the performa defendant. It is ordered that the suit of the plaintiff is partly decreed in the interest of justice and consequently, the defendants are hereby directed to start acquisition proceedings with respect to the relevant portion of the suit land depicted in tatima Ex.PW3/A within six months and to grant compensation to the plaintiff as well as proforma defendant in accordance with law. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly. Tatima Ex.PW3/A shall form part and parcel of the decree.”
In appeal, learned Appellate Court while dismissing the appeal filed by the State, upheld the judgment and decree passed by learned Trial Court. It was reiterated by learned Appellate Court that as the road stood constructed from the suit land by the State without the consent of the plaintiff as well as proforma defendant No. 2, learned Trial Court had rightly directed them to start acquisition proceedings in respect of relevant portion of the suit land and acquire the same in accordance with law.
Having heard learned Additional Advocate General as well as learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 and having perused the judgments and decrees passed by learned Courts below, this Court does not find any substantial question of law involved in this appeal. In fact, the case of the plaintiff was that the suit land stood utilized for the purpose of construction of road without acquiring the same in accordance with law and without compensating the land owner. The factum of the land of the plaintiff having been utilized for the purpose of construction of road in issue was admitted by the defendants before the learned Trial Court. It was also admitted that no compensation in lieu thereof was paid to the land owner but their defence was that the land was utilized with the consent of the parties. However, defendants failed to demonstrate on record that the land of the parties in fact stood utilized with their consent. In fact, no evidence stood adduced by the defendants before the learned Trial Court that there was any consent etc. given by the land owners for the constructions of the road through their land with further undertaking that they shall not be claiming compensation for the same.
Therefore, as concurrent findings of fact have been returned by both the learned Courts below to the effect that the land of the plaintiff and proforma defendant No. 2 stood utilized without acquiring the same in accordance with law and without compensating the land owners and without consent of the land owners, this Court does not find any infirmity in the judgments and decrees passed by learned Courts below and the appeal is accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.