IMPORTANT POINT
A person deprived of his property unlawfully is entitled to restoration of possession or payment of compensation.

JUDGMENT

Rakesh Kainthla, J.—The present appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2022, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, Camp at Bilaspur, H.P. (learned First Appellate Court), vide which the appeal filed by the respondent (plaintiff before the learned Trial Court) was allowed and the judgment and decree dated 1.1.2022, passed by learned Civil Judge, Court No. 3, Bilaspur, H.P. (learned Trial Court) was partly reversed. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience).

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the plaintiff filed a civil suit before the learned Trial Court seeking a mandatory injunction, directing the defendants to put the plaintiff in possession of the land comprised in Khata/Khatauni No. 202/945, bearing Khasra No. 1438/1337/910/1, measuring 01-16-00 bighas, Khasra No. 906/2, measuring 00-02-00 bighas, Khasra No. 906/4, measuring 00- 05-00 bighas, Khasra No. 1437/1267/905/2, measuring 00-04- 00 bighas, Khasra No. 1437/1267/905/4, measuring 00-05-00, Khasra No. 1435/904/2, measuring 00-03-00 bighas, situated in Village Amarpur, Pargana Tiun, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. (hereinafter referred as the ‘suit land’), damages and in the alternative for payment of compensation. It was asserted that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit land. The defendants constructed Rahina to Vijaypur via Amarpur road on the suit land without any authority. The plaintiff inquired from the defendants about the construction of the road, on which they assured him to pay the compensation as per law. The defendants caused damage to trees, fruit-bearing and nonfruit- bearing and other land by throwing debris on the same. The plaintiff repeatedly requested the defendants to pay the compensation to him but in vain.

3. The suit was opposed by filing a written statement taking preliminary objections regarding the lack of maintainability, the plaintiff having not come to the Court with clean hands, the suit being barred by limitation, the suit being bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and the plaintiff being estopped from filing the suit by his act and conduct. The contents of the plaint were denied on merits. It was asserted that HPPWD constructed Amarpur to Rahina via Vijaypur road in the year 1996. The plaintiff did not raise any objection in the year 1996. The road was constructed with the oral consent of the landowners. The vehicles are regularly plying on the road. No damage was caused to the other land of the plaintiff. Therefore, it was prayed that the suit be dismissed.

4. Replication denying the contents of the written statement and affirming those of the plaint was filed.

5. The learned Trial Court framed the following issues on 26.8.2014:—

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of mandatory injunction to the effect that the plaintiff be put in possession of the suit land as prayed? OPP.

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of damages which have been caused by the defendants to the plaintiff, as prayed? OPP.

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled in alternative if the defendants do not hand over the possession of suit land to its original position then the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of compensation, as prayed? OPP.

4. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form, as alleged? OPD.

5. Whether the plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands, as alleged? OPD.

6. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit by his own acts, conducts, omission and commission, as alleged? OPD.

7. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is bad for nonjoinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties, as alleged? OPD.

8. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is time-barred as alleged? OPD.

9. Relief.

6. The parties were called upon to produce the evidence and the plaintif