The judgment emphasizes the importance of property rights and due process of law under Article 300A of the Constitution of India.

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.

The appellants are the successors-in-interest of defendant No. 1 and having lost before both the Courts below have filed the instant Regular Second Appeal. (Parties hereinafter shall be referred to as the ‘Plaintiffs’ and ‘defendants’).

2. The plaintiff/respondent No. 1 filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant No. 1 from interfering in any manner and causing any sort of obstruction in the right of passage and further restraining him from encroaching upon and from raising any sort of construction over the passage comprised in Khasra No. 433, Khewat No. 943, Khatauni No. 1285, measuring 0-18 marlas as entered in the jamabandi for the year 1980-81. It was averred that the plaintiff alongwith the other residents of the village had their abadi and landed property in village Amb since the time of their ancestors and the aforesaid land was classified in the revenue record as “Share-aam-rasta” and being used by the villagers since the time immemorial and on such basis claimed the right of easement of prescription as well as easement of necessity and thereby prayed for decree for permanent injunction and in alternate for mandatory injunction on the ground that defendant No. 1 alongwith Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat was trying to block the passage by storing dry fuel wood without any right, title or interest.

3. In the written statement filed by defendant No. 1, preliminary objections regarding maintainability, better particulars, estoppel, cause of action etc. were raised. On merit, it was contended that the abadi of the plaintiff in the village was not disputed, however, it was denied that there was a passage and rather it was claimed that the suit land falls inside the gate of the abadi of defendant No. 1 and the entries in the revenue record showing suit land as passage are absolutely wrong, false and illegal and were the result of connivance of the plaintiff with the revenue field staff because the plaintiff himself retired as Patwari.

4. In the written statement filed by defendants No. 2 and 3, it was alleged that defendant No. 1 has moved an application before the Gram Panchayat for inspection of the spot and accordingly Pradhan and Members of the Gram Panchayat had inspected the spot in presence of the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 on 20.04.1996. They also disputed the passage as claimed by the plaintiff. It was submitted that settlement authority has carved out new khasra Nos. 1054, 1055 and 1060 of old khasra No. 433. Other allegations, so called obstructions in the passage were denied.

5. At this stage, it would be relevant to mention that earlier defendants No. 2 and 3 i.e. Gram Panchayat and Gram Sabha, Amb were not parties and came to be subsequently incorporated. This necessitated the framing of additional issues. The total issues framed in this case read thus :-

Issues framed on 29.06.1989:-

1. Whether there is a Share-aam-Rasta (Passage) over the suit land?OPP

2. Whether the suit land is not maintainable?OPD

3. Whether the suit is barred under Section 91 CPC?OPD

4. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct? OPD

5. Whether the plaintiff has no standing to file the present suit?OPD

6. Relief The following additional issues were framed on 15.05.1991:-

1A. Whether the plaintiff has a right of way by way of easement of prescription?OPP

1B. Whether the plaintiff has acquired right of way by way of easement of necessity over the suit property?OPP

Again the following issues were framed on 04.06.1996:-

5A. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of injunction as prayed for?OPP

5B. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties as alleged?OPD-2

5C. Whether the suit is not maintainable for want of notice under Section 193 of the H.P. Panchayati Raj Act, 1994?OPD- 2

5D. Whether the suit is bad for non-compliance of the provisions of order 1 Rule 10 CPC?OPD-2

The following additional issue was framed on 07.04.1997:-

5E. Whether the suit is barred under Section 41(1)(h)