Punjab-Haryana High Court
Babu Ram vs State Of Hy on 2 July, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:081728
RSA-4778-2003 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.4778-2003 (O&M)
Reserved on : May 21, 2024
Date of Decision : July 02, 2024
Babu Ram and others ... Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA
Argued By : - Mr. R.S. Mamli, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. Randhir Singh, Addl. A.G., Haryana
DEEPAK GUPTA, J.
Present regular second appeal is against the concurrent
findings of the Courts below, inasmuch as suit filed by the plaintiffs-
appellants seeking a decree for mandatory injunction regarding the suit
property against defendants - respondents, was dismissed by the Trial
Court on 19.10.2001 and appeal against that judgment was dismissed by
the First Appellate Court on 11.12.2002.
2. The Trial Court record was called. Same has been perused.
In order of avoid confusion, parties shall be referred as per their status
before the Trial Court.
3.1 According to the plaintiffs-appellants, they are the owners of
the suit land and that defendants have dug drain, namely, Chatang Nala
through the said land causing damage to the land, which has become
Page no.1 out of 6 pages
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:081728
RSA-4778-2003 (O&M)
useless, inasmuch as their land has been divided in two parts. It is further
the pleaded case of the plaintiffs that said land has not been acquired by
the defendants nor any compensation has been paid, as paid to other land
owners after acquiring their land. Alleging that defendants did not have
any right to construct the nala through the land of the plaintiffs without
getting the same acquired and without paying the compensation, plaintiffs
prayed for a decree of mandatory injunction by directing the defendants
to fill up the Chatang Nala dug by them through the land of the plaintiffs
and to make the said land cultivable and also to pay
compensation/damages caused to the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs further prayed
for a consequential relief of permanent injunction to restrain the
defendants from cutting and removing the trees standing on the said land,
as owned by the plaintiffs and to restrain them from cutting and removing
the said trees by the plaintiffs.
3.2 The stand taken by the defendants is that defendant No.1 has
been in actual and physical possession of the land in dispute for the last
more than 30 years and all through this period, its possession has been
hostile to the entire world including the plaintiffs and so, any right, title
or interest of the plaintiffs in the land stands extinguished and that
defendant No.1-State has become owner of the same by way of adverse
possession. Defendants pleaded further that in fact, the land of the
persons adjoining to Chatang Nala including the plaintiffs used to be
inundated during the rainy season and so, those persons had approached
defendant No.1 to raise banks of the said nala and offered the land for
Page no.2 out of 6 pages
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:081728
RSA-4778-2003 (O&M)
that purpose and it was on the request of the owners of the land that
Chatang Nala was renovated and as such, the plaintiffs are now estopped
by their own act and conduct for claiming any compensation or by filing
any suit. It is admitted on merits by the defendants that Chatang Nala
was dug by them, but it is the specific plea that the land was utilized more
than 30 years back and that trees were planted by the Forest Department
with which the defendants have no concern. They prayed for dismissal of
the suit.
3.3 In the rejoinder, plaintiffs reiterated their case.
3.4 Following issues were framed by the Trial Court:-
"1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of mandatory
injunction as prayed in the plaint? OPP.
2. Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purpose
of
Court fee and jurisdiction? OPD.
3. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of the necessary
parties?
OPD.
4. Whether the suit is false and frivolous and the defendants are
entitled for special costs under section 35-A CPC? OPD.
5. Relief. "
3.5 Evidence of the parties was taken on record and trial court
then returned the findings on issue Nos.1, 2 and 4 against the plaintiffs;
whereas, issue No. 3 was decided in favour of the plaintiffs. Consequent
to all these findings, suit was dismissed with special cost of ₹2,000/-. The
findings as retuned by the Trial Court have been affirmed by the First
Appellate Court and against these concurrent findings, plaintiffs have
Page no.3 out of 6 pages
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:081728
RSA-4778-2003 (O&M)
approached this Court by way of present appeal.
4. The contention raised by learned counsel for the appellants
before this Court is that respondents-defendants had assured the
plaintiffs-appellants to pay compensation, but nothing has been paid and
that the Courts below have not properly appreciated the evidence on
record. It is further contended that the State had acquired the land for
Chatang Nala in 1999 at villages Gadola, Taloka, Pawni, Bal Chhappar,
Nagla Nagli, Habarpur, Sadhaura and Kotarkhana and that theses villages
are on the upper side of the village of the appellants and compensation
had been paid to the owners of those villages, but in the case of land of
the appellants, no compensation has been paid and therefore, the Courts
below committed error by not granting compensation to the appellants.
Prayer is made to set aside the judgments of the Courts below and to
decree the suit of the plaintiffs-appellants by allowing the present appeal.
5. Learned State counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents contended that there is no reason to interfere in the
concurrent findings of the Court below, which are based upon proper
appreciation of evidence and being the finding of facts, this Court cannot
interfere in the same as per the legal position.
6. I have considered submissions of both the sides and have
appraised the record carefully.
7. The findings of the Courts below to the effect that suit land
belonged to the plaintiffs and that the same has been utilized by the
defendants by constructing Chatang Nala thereon through the same in the
Page no.4 out of 6 pages
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:081728
RSA-4778-2003 (O&M)
year 1963; whereas the suit has been filed in November, 1995, are the
findings of fact. In fact, it has been found by the First Appellate Court
that plaintiffs nowhere pleaded about the exact date, month and year of
construction of nala on the suit land and that the testimony of DW1 that
construction was made in 1963 and since then the same is in existence
has not been disputed by the plaintiffs.
8. It will be relevant to refer to the findings/observations made
by the First Appellate Court in para Nos.16 and 17 of the judgment,
which are as under:-
"16. Admitted facts are that the land in dispute was owned by appellants-
plaintiffs and that chatang nullah was dug through the said land by
respondents-defendants. However, plea was taken by respondents-defendants
that nullah was constructed more than 30 years ago and the said plea was not
denied in the replication. In the plaint it has not been mentioned as to when the
nullah was constructed. One of the plaintiff, Raghubir Singh when appeared as
PW1 has also nowhere deposed as to when the nullah was constructed. On the
other hand, Rajesh Narang SDO, Irrigation Department appeared as DW1 and
deposed that the nullah was constructed in the year 1963 and since then the
same is in existence. Hence, it is duly proved on the record that the nullah
through the land of the plaintiffs is in existence since the year 1963 and, hence,
the land underneath the nullah has been in possession of Irrigation Department
of Haryana Government since the year 1963 without any objection from the
side of the present appellants- plaintiffs. The present suit was filed on
24.11.1995 i.e., after about more than 30 years of digging the nullah. Hence,
learned trial court has rightly observed that the suit is hopelessly time barred,
Rather respondent-Irrigation Department has become owner of the same by
adverse possession and, hence, the appellants-plaintiffs are having no right to
seek mandatory injunction directing the defendants to fill up the said nullah
and to pay compensation to them."
9. It is, thus, clear from the aforesaid findings that suit is
hopelessly barred by time and rather, the respondent-department has
Page no.5 out of 6 pages
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:081728
RSA-4778-2003 (O&M)
become owner of the suit land by way of adverse possession, as plaintiffs
approached the Court much beyond the period of limitation.
10. As far as the dispute relating to trees standing on the suit
land is concerned, the First Appellate Court has observed in para No.18
and 19 of its judgment as under:-
"18. So far as the dispute regarding the trees standing on the land in dispute is
concerned, admittedly after filing of this suit another suit was filed by
appellants-plaintiffs against the forest department of State Government and the
said suit was decreed before decision of the present suit. Hence, as per own
version of the appellants-plaintiffs the dispute regarding the trees has already
been settled. Moreover, it has been stated by the learned Govt. Pleader for the
respondents-defendants that Irrigation department of State Government is
having no concern with the trees which were planted by the forest department
of the State Government.
19. Litigation has been started by appellants- plaintiffs after more than 30
years of the digging of the nullah for benefiting all the farmers including the
appellants-plaintiffs, against the department without any fresh cause of action.
Hence, learned trial court has rightly dismissed the suit filed by the appellants-
plaintiffs with special cost."
11. After going through the evidence available on record of Trial
Court, this Court finds absolutely no reason to disturb the well-reasoned
findings recorded by the Courts below, which otherwise also are the
findings of facts and that unless there is any illegality or perversity
therein, there is no reason for this Court to interfere therein. As such,
holding the present appeal to be devoid of merits, the same is hereby
dismissed.
July 02, 2024 (DEEPAK GUPTA)
Sarita JUDGE
Whether reasoned/speaking: Yes
Whether reportable: No
Page no.6 out of 6 pages
6 of 6
