Romesh Verma, Judge (Oral).

1. The present appeal arises out of the judgment and decree, dated 29.06.2017 as passed by learned District Judge, Mandi in Civil Appeal No. 33/2016, whereby the appeal preferred by the present appellants/defendants has been dismissed and the judgment and decree, as passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Chachiot at Gohar, District Mandi, H.P. was affirmed, whereby the suit filed by the respondents/plaintiffs for possession was partly decreed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs/respondents filed a suit for possession in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Chachiot at Gohar, District Mandi, H.P. It was averred in the plaint that land comprised in khata khatauni No. 36min/45, bearing khasra No. 501/160, measuring 00-03-12 bigha, situated at Muhal Port/207, Tehsil Chachiot, District Mandi, H.P. is owned and possessed by the plaintiff as per the revenue record. That the defendants through the suit land had constructed a road, namely, Kot-Devidhar road about 25-30 years ago without the acquisition of said land. That at the time of construction of road, the grandfather of the plaintiffs had objected to the said construction and it was requested to the officials of the department that without payment of compensation and without adopting the due process of law, the plaintiffs cannot be deprived of their property. The grandfather of the plaintiffs has made various correspondences for the acquisition of the land but the defendants had not paid any heed to his requests. That after the death of the grandfather of the plaintiff, the father of the plaintiff also made correspondences with the defendants. At the time of construction of road, predecessor-in-interest of plaintiffs was assured by the officials of the department/State that due compensation shall be paid to his predecessor-in-interest in due course of time and on the basis of said assurance, no action was taken by the defendants. That after completion of road, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs again approached the defendants/State for grant of compensation for utilizing the suit land, but the defendants are making lame excuses on one pretext or the other and that show the malafide intentions on the part of the State/defendants.

3. As per plaintiff, now the defendants are stacking stones on the suit land to construct retaining wall due to which path of the house of plaintiffs will be blocked and no sufficient land will be left for the plaintiffs for his courtyard and water of water channel will also enter into the house of the plaintiffs. Therefore, the suit for possession on the basis of title was filed before the learned trial Court against the defendants/appellants.

It was prayed that the suit land, which has been utilized for the purpose of construction of the aforesaid road, the same shall be restored to its original position as it was before the construction of the road and the defendants be restrained from causing any interference over the suit land.

4. The suit was contested by the present appellants/defendants by filing written statement raising various preliminary objections with respect to the maintainability, locus standi, cause of action, limitation etc. On merits, it was admitted that the road, namely, Kot-Devidhar road was constructed about 30 years back and the said road was constructed on the verbal consent of the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs. That after construction of the road, vehicles were plying on it. The road is metalled one and nobody raised objection to it. It was denied that the department had assured the grandfather of the plaintiff for the payment of amount of compensation. All the averments made in the plaint were refuted and denied and defendants sought the dismissal of the suit.

5. Learned trial Court on 01.06.2012 framed the following issues:-

“1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the vacant possession of the suit land which is stated to have been uti