State cannot deprive property owner of land for public road without due process of acquisition and compensation under Article 300A; defenses of delay, acquiescence, estoppel, and adverse possession rejected.

The present Regular Second Appeal arises out of the judgment and decree as passed by the learned District Judge, Hamirpur, H.P. dated 18.10.2022, whereby the appeal preferred by the State has been ordered to be dismissed and the judgment and decree as passed by the learned Civil Judge, Court No.2, Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, dated 11.11.2022 has been affirmed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff- respondent has filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction and mandatory under Section 9 ,26 Order 7 Rule 1 C.P.C and Sections 34, 38 and 39 of Specific Relief Act.

3. It was averred in the plaint that the suit land comprised in Khata No. 130, Khatauni No. 134, Khasra No. 41, area measuring 2K-15M, situated in Tika Kariana, Tappa Mehlta, Tehsil & District Hamirpur (hereinafter to be referred as the suit land) is owned and possessed by the plaintiff alongwith other co-sharers and defendants are strangers to the same.

4. It was averred that the suit land is on the National highway and taking undue advantage of the plaintiff being away on account of his job, defendants have constructed some portion for National highway through the suit land without due process of law. When the said fact came to the knowledge of the plaintiff after his retirement, he went to the authorities and raised his grievances on which assurance was given by the defendants/present appellants to pay appropriate compensation to him. It was stated that though defendants were issued notices, however the defendants threatened the plaintiff to dis-mental the structure and to take the forcible possession of the suit land without acquiring it under the provisions of Law Acquisition Act. Therefore, the suit was filed by the plaintiff for Permanent Prohibitory Injunction restraining the defendants being strangers to the suit land to interfere over it or to cause any obstruction in the construction or structure raised by the plaintiff after leaving necessary space of five meters from the spot. In alternative, plaintiff has also claimed the relief of mandatory injunction directing the defendants to restore the suit land to its original position, in case any portion of the National Highway is found over the suit land.

5. The suit was contested by the defendants in the present appeal by raising the preliminary objections of maintainability, estoppel, cause of action and non-joinder of necessary parties. On merits, it was stated that Shimla- Mattour road is being maintained by defendant No.2 since 2004, prior to which this road was being maintained by H.P.P.W.D Division Hamirpur for the last 30 years. Since the road is in existence from quite long time, on the basis of principle of estoppel and acquiescence, the plaintiff has silently consented to the construction of the road. It was further stated that the plaintiff dug a deep pit adjoining to NH-88 which leads from Shimla-Mattour and when this fact came to the knowledge of the defendants, a notice was served upon the plaintiff to stop doing unauthorized digging on the road side. It was further alleged that Shimla-Mattour road is in existence over the suit land for the last 30 years and an area measuring 0-2M in Khasra No.41 has been shown as Gair Mumkin road in revenue records. Further, it was submitted that defendants have submitted land acquisition papers under the Land Acquisition Act with respect to the suit land, and due compensation will be paid to the plaintiff in du