State cannot dispossess individuals of property or utilize land for public purpose without legal acquisition and just compensation, reinforcing constitutional property rights.

JUDGMENT :

Romesh Verma, J.

The present Regular Second Appeal arises out of the judgment and decree as passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P. dated 29.07.2024, whereby the appeal as preferred by the defendants/appellants has been ordered to be dismissed and the judgment and decree as passed by the learned Civil Judge, Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P. dated 31.10.2023 was affirmed

2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff- respondent filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief for injunction in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Sarkaghat, District Mandi on 18.05.2015. As per the averments as made in the plaint, the plaintiff is owner of the land comprised in Khewat No. 203 min, Khatoni No. 234 bearing Khsra No. 620, Kita 3, land measuring 00-02-90 hectares, situated in Mohal Nabahi bearing Hadbast No. 368, Illaqua Suranga, Tehsil Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P. as per jamabandi for the year 2010-2011. It was averred that before the settlement operation in the area, the suit land was comprised in khata Khatauni No. 66 min/159 bearing Khasra No. 564 min (old) corresponding to Khasra No. 614 (new) land measuring 00-02-90 hectares and after settlement operation, in measuring 00-00-77 hectares and Khasra No. 871 min (old) corresponding to Khasra No. 1559 (new),

3. That after settlement operation the suit land in consolidation operation which was affected in area concerned in year 1990-91, the suit land carved in Khata, Khatani No. 172 min/206 bearing Khasra No. 614(old) corresponding to Khasra No.620 (new) land measuring 00- 02-90 hectare as per naklal Missal Hakiyat Bandobast Jadid, and Nakal Missal Hakiyat consolidation of the year 1993-1994 of Mouza Nabahi Tehsil Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P. It was averred that prior to settlement operation, the suit land was jointly owned and possessed by predecessor- in-interest of plaintiffs as well as of proforma defendants and after their death, plaintiff and proforma defendants are in joint ownership. It was further averred that that HPPWD had constructed the road namely “Ghumarwin to Sarkaghat” through the suit land and when the respondents/plaintiffs objected to the same, assurance was given to the plaintiffs that they shall be duly compensated on account of utilization of the suit land and it is only on their assurance that the plaintiffs permitted the officials of the State to raise the construction of the road over the suit land. In the revenue record, classification of the land has been depicted as “gair mumkin road”. Since the defendants have utilized the land of the plaintiffs without adopting due process of law including payment of amount, therefore, the plaintiffs filed a suit to declare their rights of due compensation qua the suit land.

4. As per the averments as made in the plaint the cause of action arose to the plaintiffs to file suit firstly on 29.04.2008 and thereafter on 07.12.2011 when the suit land was not found to have been mentioned in the Notification as issued by the State under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. The plaintiffs were under impression that on account of the promises as made by the officials of the defendants, the suit land shall be acquired and compensation shall be duly paid to the affected parties. Therefore, the suit for declaration and injunction was filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants.

5. The suit was contested by the defendants by raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability, cause of action, mis-joinder and non- joinder of ne