The State cannot forcibly dispossess individuals of their property without compensation and due process of law. Property rights, protected as constitutional, supersede the State's plea of delay, laches, or adverse possession, particularly where the State has failed to follow statutory acquisition procedures.

The present appeal arises out of judgment and decree, as passed by the learned District Judge, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, H.P. dated 21.08.2024 in Civil Appeal No. 42/13 of 2023, whereby the appeal filed by the present appellants has been dismissed and the judgment and decree, as passed by the learned Civil Judge, Jhandutta, District Bilaspur, H.P. dated 31.07.2023 in Civil Suit No. 141-1 of 2021/2018, have been affirmed.

Brief facts of the present case are that plaintiffs filed a suit for decree of possession, permanent prohibitory injunction, mandatory injunction and in alternative sought compensation against the defendants. It was claimed that the appellants/defendants had constructed road through the land of the plaintiffs/ respondents without consent and permission of the plaintiffs. It was further averred that the defendants are very influential, resourceful and clever persons and are trying to grab the suit land of the plaintiffs and are also trying to dig road, changing the nature of the suit land and also threatening to cut trees and destroy the crops from the suit land without any right, title and interest over the suit land.

It was averred that the Government notification was duly issued for acquisition of lands of village Dharashani, Post Office Rishikesh, Tehsil Jhandutta, District Bilaspur, H.P. but no steps were taken to make the payment to the affected persons. The present appellants had allowed the said notification to lapse. The plaintiffs requested the officials of the appellants to pay the amount of compensation on account of utilization of the land of the present respondents but except for making assurances, no steps were taken by the appellants in that regard.

As per plaintiff, servants and agents of the appellants/ defendants are threatening to dig the adjacent land to the road, to destroy the crops, to cut the trees and to break stones from the suit land and to change the nature of the suit land. Therefore, decree for possession, permanent prohibitory and mandatory injunction was sought from the learned trial Court.

The suit was contested by the appellants/ defendants by raising preliminary objections qua the maintainability and cause of action etc. On merits, it was contended that the plaintiffs have got no cause of action to file the suit and that the suit is bad for mis-joinder and non joinder of necessary parties and having no locus standi to file the suit as it is barred by law of limitation. It was further averred that the plaintiffs have not approached the Court with clean hands and suppressed material facts from the Court.

On 23.10.2021, following issues came to be framed by the learned Trial Court:-

1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for relief of possession, as prayed for? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for relief of mandatory injunction, as prayed for? OPP

3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for relief of injunction(s), as prayed for? OPP

4. Whether the present suit is not maintainable, as alleged? OPD.

5. Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD

6. Whether the plaintiffs have not come to the court with clean hands, as alleged? OPD

7. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped from filing the present suit by their own acts, conducts, omission and commission, as alleged? OPD

8. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder and non joinder of necessary parties, as alleged? OPD

9. Whether the defendants are entitled for relief of special cost under Section 35-A of CPC, as alleged? OPD

10. Whether the plaintiffs have not complied with the mandatory provision of law i.e. Section 80 CPC, as alleged? OPD

11. Relief.

The learned Civil Judge, Jhandutta, District Bilaspur vide its judgment and decree dated 31.07.2023 decreed the suit of the plaintiffs/respondents and it was ordered that the plaintiffs/respondents are entitled for decree of mandatory injunction against the respondents/ defendants, whereby direction wa