A welfare State cannot occupy private land for public purpose without due process of law or payment of compensation, and it cannot assert a claim of adverse possession against its citizens to defeat their right to recover their property.

The present appeal arises out of the judgment and decree, dated 6.11.2019, as passed by the learned District Judge, Hamirpur, H.P. in C. A. No. 133/2017, whereby the appeal preferred by the present appellants/defendants has been partly allowed and the judgment and decree dated 1.9.2017, as passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Hamirpur, H.P. in Civil Suit No. 184/2009, have been modified, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for vacant possession of the suit land comprised in Khewat No. 242, Khatauni No. 250, Khasra No. 1088, previous Khasra No. 756 min, measuring 0-00-22 hectares and Khewat No.243, Khatauni No. 251, Khasra No.1199, previous Khasra No.758, measuring 0-07-27 hectares, situated in Village Hatli, Tehsil Nadaun, District Hamirpur, H.P.

Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff/respondent filed a suit for possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. It was averred in the plaint that the plaintiff is recorded as owner in possession of the suit land. Though he is recorded as joint owner in possession of the suit land along with other co-sharers, however he is an absolute owner of the same by way of family arrangement. The suit land has been utilized by the defendants/appellants i.e. State of Himachal Pradesh, for construction of road, namely “Dhanet Hamirpur via Kangoo Galore Road” and nature of the suit land is being depicted in the revenue record as “Gair Mumkin Sarak”. It was further averred that neither the defendants/appellants acquired the suit land nor they paid any compensation to the plaintiff/respondent. When the protest was made by the plaintiff/respondent against the use and utilization of the suit land, the State Government initiated acquisition proceedings and requisite notifications were also issued. One of such notifications was published in Danik Tribune on 6.3.2001, however the same was allowed to lapse and was not taken to its logical end. Though, the plaintiff/respondent was made to understand that the acquisition process shall be finalized and adequate compensation shall be paid to him, but nothing was done qua the same, therefore, the plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of vacant possession of the suit land.

The suit was contested by the defendants/appellants by raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability, cause of action, locus standi, non-joinder of necessary party, estoppel etc. On merits, it was averred that the suit land was recorded as “Gair Mumkin Sarak” and the defendants/appellants utilized the suit land for the construction of “Dhanet Hamirpur via Kangoo Galore Road”. The aforesaid road was constructed before 1980 and the same was done with oral consent of the plaintiff/respondent and other co-sharers. It was further averred that it is not possible to acquire the suit land at such a belated stage that too after elapse of more than 30 years.

The plaintiff/respondent filed replication to the written statement filed by the defendants and all the averments as made in the plaint were reiterated.

On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court on 18.11.2010 framed the following issues:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of vacant possession, as claimed? OPP

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

3. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit, as alleged? OPD

4. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit, as alleged? OPD

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

6. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his own act, conduct and acquiescence, as alleged? OPD

7. Whether the road has been constructed with the consent of plaintiff and other co-owners. Hence, the plaintiff is not entitled for relief of possession, as claimed? OPD

8. Relief.

The learned trial court directed the parties to adduce evidence in support of their contentions to corroborate their respective case and