The defendants' illegal blockage of a public road, affecting the plaintiffs' property rights, led to the court's decision to uphold the relief granted to the plaintiffs.

JUDGMENT

Arun Monga, J. (Oral) - For convenience, parties herein are described as per recitals before the trial Court.

2. Having suffered concurrent adverse findings by the two Courts below, the defendants are in second appeal before this Court assailing the trial Court judgment and decree dated 13.01.2011, as upheld by the learned First Appellate Court vide its judgment and decree dated 29.08.2013.

3. Briefly stated, facts as noticed by Courts below are that house in dispute is owned and possessed by the plaintiffs and it is being used by all the family members residing therein for the last many years. They have their ingress and egress from Dass Road, Ferozepur Cantt. There are two entrance gates to the said house; one is main gate towards east side abutting Dass road and side small gate is towards south side abutting the other road.

3.1 It is further alleged that the plaintiffs have fundamental right to stay in their house and to freely use all public roads for approaching their house. No person or authority has any right to put any hindrance or hurdles in their free use of the public roads. Bungalow No.56 was initially purchased by Nathu Ram for Rs.15,000/- being the highest bidder by public auction held on 30.01.1958 and a certificate of sale of this property was issued by the District Rent and Managing Officer in favour of said Nathu Ram.

3.2 After the death of Nathu Ram, his estate including the house in dispute devolved upon his legal heirs including Manohar Lal and after the death of said Manohar Lal, the plaintiffs being his legal heirs are residing in the house in dispute. The plaintiffs are paying its house tax and water tax. The plaintiffs have further alleged that during the past two years the defendants have gradually caused blockage of Dass Road, Ferozepur Cantt and made it unusable for vehicular traffic.

3.3 Defendants No.2 and 3 initially erected low fencing on either side of the road, as shown in blue colour in the site plan, as a result of which Dass road stood blocked from the middle and became useless for any kind of vehicular traffic. Subsequently, they put up a concrete notice board in the middle of the road thereby blocking the road and had also dug two large deep trenches measuring 20'X20' at two different places and had also dug a third shallow trench as well in the said road.

3.4 The erection of fencing, digging up of trenches and putting up a concrete notice board by the defendants are allegedly illegal hurdles created by the defendants which had affected the free use of Dass road by the plaintiffs. The defendants are also alleged to have erected fencing at point 'Y' in site plan to further block and restrict the width of the left over area of Dass road and had installed a gate to further directly restrict the ingress and egress of the plaintiffs and other inhabitants of the said area.

3.5 The plaintiffs have no other access to approach to their house. Now defendants No.2 and 3 are alleged to have started constructing a high fence in the area and have also erected such fencing abutting the southern wall of the house of the plaintiffs by leaving a small entrance to the house of the plaintiffs.

3.6 It is further pleaded that Dass road and the roads approach that area are sanctioned roads and exist in the record of Cantonment Board, Ferozepur as well as in the site plans in possession of the Army authorities. The defendants have no legal or moral authority to block any road in any manner. The roads, passages, by-lanes are in fact public properties in which the public has interest of its free user.

3.7 The plaintiffs requested the defendants to remove all the blockages caused by them and admit their claim and even the plaintiffs served notice under Section 80 CPC upon the defendants, but to no effect, hence the civil suit.

4. Upon notice, defendants No.1 to 3 appeared and contested the suit by filing written statement taking preliminary objection of concealment of facts. In fact, Security fencing around the defe