The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act and the impact of the bar created by Section 331 of the U.P.Z.A & L.R. Act on the sustainability of the suit.

JUDGMENT

Sharad Kumar Sharma, J. - The appellant before this Court is a plaintiff in a Civil Suit No. 74 of 1999, Bachan Singh Vs. General Manager, Tehri Hydro Power Corporation & Another. By virtue of the suit in question, which was instituted by invoking the provisions contained under Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act of 1963, on 02.12.1999, the plaintiff (appellant herein) had sought a decree, to the effect of grant of a decree of mandatory injunction, in relation to the land, which was lying in khatauni No. 117 khet No. 50, out of which 240 sq. meter of land, as shown in schedule (Ka) of the property, described in the plaint map by figure A, B, C, D, for purposes of payment of compensation, as a consequence of the taking over of the property by the defendants/respondents to the suit, without a recourse to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, which was the subject matter as an issue before the trial Court. A nature of decree was also solicited by the plaintiff/appellant before the Courts below was for the grant of a decree of mandatory injunction and to remove the construction, which has been raised on the land in question by way of boundary wall. In fact, in totality, the relief as claimed by the plaintiff/appellant has been detailed in para 20 of the plaint, which is referred to hereunder:-

2. If the plaint is read in its totality, and particularly, that the pleading, which has been raised by the plaintiff/appellant in paragraphs 18 and 19, the plaintiff/appellant has himself confined his claim for the grant of adequate compensation by way of issuance of a decree of mandatory injunction in relation to 1/5th part of the property only, which was the subject matter of the suit in question.

3. The defendants were noticed, and in response to the notice, the defendants have filed their written statement on 19.05.2000, wherein, in the pleadings, apart from denying the plaint averments, they had submitted that the alleged claim of respective share and with regard to the assessment of the compensation sought for by invoking the provisions contained under Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, would not be tenable, in view of the fact that in accordance with the revenue records, the pleadings of which have been specifically raised in para 10 of the written statement, the property has not yet been specifically divested with the co-sharers, who have been still continued to be jointly recorded, over the land in question. Ultimately, the suit in question, the parties led their respective evidence and particularly, the plaintiff/appellant, in order to substantiate his claim with regard to the grant of adequate compensation for the land lying in khasra No. 50 of khata No. 117, has placed reliance on paper No. 14 (Ga) i.e. khatauni pertaining to 1404 to 1409 fasli, in which the property in question has been shown to be a jointly recorded in the name of the plaintiff/appellant, along with other co-tenure holders, and co-sharers, which is a fact not disputed, by the learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiff/appellant, and even as per records of revenue entries, because it was a document, which the plaintiff/appellant wanted to place reliance, for the purposes of determination of an adequacy of compensation, which he claimed was to be payable for the land, which was allegedly taken over by the defendant/respondent without the recourse to the land acquisition proceedings.

4. The suit proceeded and ultimately, the learned trial Court, after the exchange of the pleadings, had formulated the following issues on the basis of the pleadings:-

5. The parties led their respective evidence and particularly the plaintiff/appellant, by way of documents produced on record by way of list paper No. 7C and paper No. 42C, had produced 6 documents on record apart from recording the oral statement of PW1 and PW2 Mr. Amardev Uniyal, who was the Patwari at the relevant point of time. The defendants had also led their oral evidence by producing DW1,