Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ram Sarup vs The State Of Punjab on 30 January, 2023
RSA No. 2754 of 1996 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No. 2754 of 1996 (O&M)
Date of decision : 30.1.2023
...
Ram Sarup and others
................Appellants
vs.
The State of Punjab and others
.................Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice H. S. Madaan
Present: None for the appellants
Ms. Guramrit Kaur, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab
...
H. S. Madaan, J.
1. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that plaintiffs - Ram
Sarup, Vijay Kumar - sons and Smt. Janak Rani - wife of Krishan
Kumar, all residents of village Baghian, Tehsil Jagraon, District
Ludhiana, residing at House No. EG-871, Mohalla Govindgarh,
Jalandhar City, had brought a suit against defendants - State of
Punjab through Secretary, Revenue Department, Civil Secretariat,
Chandigarh as well as its officers, seeking a decree for grant of
mandatory injunction directing the defendants to allot land in lieu
of their land which was rendered useless by the defective
construction and breach of Dhusi Bandh, in the area of village
Baghian, Tehsil Jagraon, District Ludhiana.
2. On getting notice, the defendants appeared. Defendants
1 of 6
No. 1 to 4 filed a joint written statement contesting the suit, raising
various legal objections to wit that no notice under Section 80 CPC
had been served upon the defendants before filing of the suit,
therefore, the plaint was liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11
CPC; the suit was barred by the principle of res judicata; the suit
was not maintainable; the suit was time barred and it was not
properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction. On
merits, such defendants contended that the plaintiffs had purchased
the land, which was situated in the river bed, fully knowing about
the possibility of the same being eroded at the time of flow of river
water. The defendants denied that the land of the plaintiff was
eroded on account of any negligence on the part of the State
Government. According to the defendants, the Dhusi Bandh was
already in existence at the time of purchase of land by the plaintiffs
and no loss has been caused to the land of the plaintiffs on account
of any breach or seepage from the Dhusi Bandh. The request for
grant of compensation, by the plaintiffs was considered by the
'State Government and the same was rejected. According to the
defendants, no case was there to grant any relief to the plaintiffs.
They prayed for dismissal of the suit.
3. Defendant No.6 had filed a separate written statement
pleading on the similar lines as that of defendants No. 1 to 4.
4. Plaintiffs filed replication controverting the allegations
in the written statement and reiterating the averments made in the
plaint. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were
framed :-
2 of 6
1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the mandatory
injunction directing the defendants to allot land in lieu
of the land rendered useless by the defective
construction and breach of Dhusi - Bandh owned and
possessed by the plaintiffs? OPP
2) Whether the the suit is not maintainable for want of
notice under Section 80 CPC? OPD
3) Whether the suit is barred by the principles of res
judicata ? OPD
4) Whether the suit is barred by limitation ? OPD
5) Whether no cause of action has arisen to the plaintiffs
to file the present suit? OPD
6) Whether the plaintiffs are estopped to file the present
suit by their act and conduct? OPD
7) Whether the suit is not properly valued for purposes of
court fee and jurisdiction? OPD
8) Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present
form ? OPD
9) Relief.
5. Parties were afforded adequate opportunities to lead
evidence in support of their respective claims.
6. After hearing the arguments, the trial Court of Additional
Senior Sub Judge, Jagraon, decided issue No.1 against the
plaintiffs and in favour of the defendants, holding that there was no
cogent and convincing evidence adduced by the plaintiffs to show
that the designing and construction of Dhusi Bandh was faulty or
3 of 6
that on account of breach in Dhusi Bandh, land of the plaintiff was
eroded. Therefore, no case for grant of equitable relief of
mandatory injunction to the plaintiff was made out.
7. Issue No.2 was decided holding that the plaintiffs had
served a valid notice under Section 80 CPC upon the defendants
for filing of the suit.
8. Issue No.3 was decided in favour of the plaintiffs
observing that though the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at
the first instance had rejected the writ petition of the plaintiffs and
the SLP filed was dismissed by the Apex Court, however, the
plaintiffs were not debarred from seeking the relief by way of filing
a civil suit, which they had sought in the High Court and before
Supreme Court. In that way, the suit was not not barred by the
principles of res judicata. Issue No.4 was decided in favour of the
plaintiffs and against the defendants, holding that the suit was
within limitation. Issues No. 5, 6, 7 and 8 were decided as not
pressed by the defendants.
9. As a cumulative effect of findings on the issues, the trial
Court of Additional Senior Sub Judge, Jagraon, vide judgment and
decree dated 25.11.1993, dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs,
without costs.
10. Feeling aggrieved, by the said judgment and decree
passed by the trial Court, the plaintiffs had filed an appeal before
the District Judge, Ludhiana, which was assigned to Additional
District Judge, Ludhiana, who vide judgment and decree dated
6.5.1996, affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial
4 of 6
Court and dismissed the appeal, with no order as to costs.
11. Still feeling aggrieved, the plaintiffs have approached
this Court by way of filing the present regular second appeal ,
notice of which was given to the respondents, who have appeared
through State counsel.
12. There has not been any representation on behalf of the
appellants. Since the case relates to the year 1996, as such I do
not find it proper to adjourn it any further, therefore, I proceed to
decide the same, with the assistance of learned State counsel and
after going through the record.
13. In this case, onus was heavy upon the plaintiffs to
establish that on account of some defect in designing and
construction of Dhusi Bandh or any leakage had been taking place
from it, eroding the soil from the agricultural land of the plaintiffs
located nearby and for that reason, the plaintiffs are entitled to be
allotted that much land by the defendant - State in lieu of such land
allegedly having been rendered useless. However, the plaintiffs
have failed to prove these assertions, by bringing enough cogent
and convincing evidence on record. Therefore, the suit of the
plaintiffs was dismissed by the trial Court, finding that the
plaintiffs are not entitled to the decree of mandatory injunction as
prayed for. The Ist Appellate Court of Additional District Judge,
Ludhiana, has affirmed such judgment and decree passed by the
trial Court.
14. I find that the impugned judgments passed by the Courts
below are quite detailed and well reasoned based upon proper
5 of 6
appraisal and appreciation of evidence and correct interpretation of
law. There is no illegality or infirmity therein which might have
prompted me to interfere with such judgments, while hearing
regular second appeal. As a matter of fact, no substantial question
of law arises in the present appeal.
15. The appeal is found to be without any merit and the same
stands dismissed accordingly.
( H.S. Madaan )
30.1.2023 Judge
chugh
Whether speaking / reasoned Yes / No
Whether reportable Yes / No
6 of 6
