The central legal point established in the judgment is that the defendants could not construct a road through the plaintiff's land without following the acquisition proceedings and paying compensation under the Land Acquisition Act.

Rajiv Sharma, J.

1. This Regular Second Appeal has been instituted against Judgment and Decree dated 15.12.2006 rendered by the learned Additional District Judge, Shimla camp at Rohru, in Civil Appeal No. 44-R/13 of 2005.

2. “Key facts” necessary for the adjudication of the present appeal that the appellant-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as 'plaintiff' for convenience sake) filed a suit against the respondents-defendants (hereinafter referred to as 'defendants’ for convenience sake) for declaration, mandatory injunction and seeking direction to the defendants to initiate and complete the acquisition proceedings in respect of land of the plaintiff and damage to his fruit bearing trees. According to the averments made in the plaint, plaintiff and proforma defendant Resham Dei were joint owners of the land comprised in Khata Khatauni No. 47/87 min. Khasra No. 857, 948, 965, 214 situate in Chak Shiladesh, Tehsil Chairgaon, District Shimla, HP measuring 0-17-33, 0-30-94, 0-13-27 and 0-13-29, respectively. However, in the family arrangement, suit land was allotted to the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, defendants No. 1 to 3 without complying with the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, constructed a road known as "Tikkari-Larot-Dodra Kwar road" on the land of the plaintiff, but no compensation was paid to the plaintiff. Fruit bearing plants were also damaged.

3. Suit was contested by the defendants. According to them, road was constructed in the year 1987. At that time, plaintiff never objected. Rather, at that time, he was working as Mate on the "Tikkari-Larot-Dodra Kwar road." Road was constructed on his request. Plaintiff waived off his claim of compensation as the road was constructed with his consent in the year 1987.

4. Issues were framed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) on 22.3.2004. Learned trial Court dismissed the suit on 29.11.2004. Plaintiff filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Shimla camp at Rohru. He dismissed the appeal on 15.12.2006. Hence, this Regular Second Appeal.

5. The appeal was admitted on 15.9.2009 on the following substantial question of law:

“Whether the findings of judgment and decree passed by he Court below are a result of complete misreading, misinterpretation of the evidence and material on record and against the settled position of law?”

6. Mr. Bharat Bhushan Vaid, Advocate, on the basis of substantial question of law has vehemently argued that the respondents could not construct road through the plaintiff’s land without initiating acquisition proceedings and without paying him compensation. He then contended that the learned Courts below have not appreciated the evidence, oral as well as documentary.

7. Mr. Parmod Thakur, Additional Advocate General, has supported the judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below.

8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the record carefully.

9. Appellant, Chandervir has appeared as PW-1. According to him, he was owner of the land alongwith his mother. According to him, the road namely "Tikkari-Larot-Dodra Kwar road" was constructed by the defendants 17-18 years back, without acquiring his land. He was not paid any compensation. He wrote application to the SDO and Executive Engineer of the Public Works Department vide Exts. P1, P2 and P3. He also issued a legal notice to the defendants through his advocate vide Ext. P9 against postal receipts Exts. P10 to P12. Copy of Jamabandi for the year 1997-98 was Ext. P13. In his cross-examination, he admitted that the road was constructed 17-18 years back. He denied the suggestion that the road was constructed with his consent.

10. Hira Singh (PW-2) testified that when "Tikkari-Larot-Dodra Kwar road" was constructed, at that time, ten fruit bearing trees of the plaintiff were damaged by the Public Works Department. Land acquisition proceedings were not initiated. He has also denied the suggestion that the road was constructed with the consent of the p