IMPORTANT POINT
The welfare State cannot claim adverse possession against its citizens, and delay and laches do not apply in cases of continuing cause of action.

JUDGMENT :

Satyen Vaidya, J.

All these Regular Second Appeals are being decided by a common judgment as common questions of facts and law are involved.

2. The respondent in all these appeals were the plaintiffs before the first Court in their respective suits. The parties hereinafter, for convenience, will be referred to by the same status as they held before the first Court.

3. Facts common in all the appeals are that plaintiffs owned their respective land in Village Dhrarshani, Post Office Rishikesh, Tehsil Jhandutta, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh. Defendants constructed “Auhar-Kohina” road and during such process utilized the lands of plaintiffs without acquisition and payment of compensation. Plaintiffs filed the suits seeking decree of permanent prohibitory and mandatory injunctions.

4. Defendants contested the suit by raising questions of maintainability, estoppel, non joinder of necessary parties, valuation, limitation etc..

5. It was submitted that the road had been constructed in the year 1986-87. Plaintiffs were to file suits within three years and due to long delay the suits were alleged to be not maintainable.

6. Learned trial Court held the plaintiffs entitled to the relief and defendants were directed to take steps for acquisition of lands of plaintiffs utilized for construction of “Auhar-Kohina” road and to disburse the assessed compensation to them expeditiously and not later than six months from the date of passing of decree(s).

7. The defendants filed appeals under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure which came to be decided by the learned Additional District Judge, Ghumarwin vide impugned judgment(s) and decree(s). In the cases, from which RSA Nos. 255 of 2020, 239 of 2020 and 204 of 2020 have arisen, the plaintiffs had also filed cross-objections. Learned First Appellate Court, dismiss the appeals of the State and allowed the cross-objections of the plaintiffs wherever such objections were filed.

8. Learned First Appellate Court passed the decrees in following terms:-

“35. The decree passed by the learned Court is up-held. It is further directed that in event the defendants neither acquire the suit land under the road in accordance with law, nor opt to hand over the possession, the plaintiffs will be entitled to vacant possession by restoring the suit land to its original position.

36. This alternative relief of possession shall not be executable for six months and also in event a notification for acquisition is issued and matter processed for payment of compensation in accordance with law.”

9. Out of these appeals, RSA No.255 of 2020 has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law:-

“1. Whether the Court has jurisdiction to try & determine the suit which was filed after the expiry of limitation period i.e. 31 years?

2. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped to file the suit by their own acts, conducts and deeds etc.?

3. Whether the suit filed for prohibitory injunction and mandatory injunction after a period of 31 years suffers from delay and laches?”

10. The remaining appeals are still at the stage of admission. Since, similar questions have been raised by the defendants in all the appeals, as such they are being decided taking into consideration the aforesaid substantial questions of law.

11. The Court of the first instance as also the First Appellate Court have concurrently held that the land of the plaintiffs were utilized for construction of “Auhar-Kohina” road without payment of compensation to them. No dispute has been raised as to such findings of fact. It has only been contended on behalf of the defendants that the suits filed by the plaintiffs after almost 27 years were hopelessly time barred. In alternative, plaintiffs having remained silent for such a long period were estopped from raising the claim . Principle of acquiescence has also sought been applied against them on the premise that the plaintiffs were aware about the construction of road and the road was constructed with their imp