State cannot deprive individuals of property without due process and must provide just compensation if property is utilized for public use.

JUDGMENT :

Romesh Verma, J.

The present appeal arises out of the judgment and decree, dated 22.05.2025 as passed by the learned District Judge-I, Mandi, District Mandi, HP in Civil Appeal No. 13 of 2025, whereby the appeal preferred by the present appellants/ defendants has been ordered to be dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 26.03.2024, as passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Court No.1, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P., passed in Civil Suit No. 82 of 2020, have been affirmed, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for declaration and mandatory injunction was decreed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff/ respondent filed a suit for mandatory injunction in the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Court No.1, Mandi, HP on 26.03.2024 on the ground that the land comprised in Khewat Khatauni No. 45 min/ 49, Khasra No. 1123 measuring 00-04-05 bigha situated in Muhal Badyar/30, Mauja Bhardgaon, Tehsil Kotli, District Mandi, H.P is owned and possessed by the plaintiff. In the year 1994, the defendants No. 3 and 4 had constructed Gharwan to Taryasal –Dawahan road and for that purpose, the land owned and possessed by the plaintiff was utilized.

3. The officials of the defendants assured the plaintiff to compensate him for utilization of his land, however no steps were taken by them. When the plaintiff approached the defendants for the grant of compensation, no steps were taken by them for the reasons best known to them. Though, assurance was given to the plaintiff to compensate him, but till date, no compensation amount has been paid, therefore, the plaintiff was constrained to file a suit for declaration to the effect that he is the owner in possession of the suit land and for mandatory injunction that since the defendants have utilized the suit land, therefore, the plaintiff sought vacant possession of the suit land.

4. The suit was contested by the defendants/State by raising preliminary objections qua maintainability, limitation, cause of action, estoppels, equity, valuation , mis joinder and non joinder etc. On merits, it was averred that the defendants No. 3 & 4 had constructed the road in question with the consent of the plaintiff in the year 1994 and the defendants had not given any assurance to the plaintiff to pay the compensation for the suit land. At the time of construction of the road, the plaintiff never raised any objection and now he cannot be permitted to raise objection that too after elapse of more than 30 years of the construction of road and consequently, the defendants sought dismissal of the suit.

5. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court on 27.04.2022 framed the following issues:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a mandatory injunction against the defendants, as prayed ? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of possession, as prayed ? OPP

3. Whether the suit in hand is not maintainable ? OPD

4. Whether the plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands, if so, its consequences ? OPD

5. Whether the plaintiff has concealed material facts from the Court, if so, its consequences ? OPD

6. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action against the defendants ? OPD

7. Whether the suit in hand is bad for non joinder of necessary parties ? OPD

8. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties ? OPD

9. Whether the suit is not properly valued for Court fee and jurisdiction ? OPD

10. Relief.

6. The learned trial court directed the respective parties to adduce evidence in support of their contentions to corroborate their respective case and ultimately, the learned trial court vide its judgment and decree dated 26.03.2024 decreed the suit of the plaintiff