Romesh Verma, Judge (Oral):

1. The present appeal arises out of the judgment and decree, dated 13.11.2024 as passed by the learned District Judge, Kullu, H.P. in Civil Appeal Registration No. 22 of 2024, whereby the appeal filed by the present respondents/ defendants was accepted and the suit filed by the plaintiffs/appellants was dismissed being barred by limitation.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants/ plaintiffs filed a suit for possession qua the land comprised in Khasra No. 1687 of 203, Khata/Khatauni No. 134/173 min measuring 11-14-0 Bigha situated in Phati Shamshi, Kothi Khokhan, Tehsil Bhuntar, District Kullu, H.P. as recorded in Jamabandi for the year 2004-05, and in alternative plaintiff sought decree for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to acquire the suit land as per the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 and to pay compensation as per market value to them.

3. It has been averred that the plaintiffs are the owner in possession of the suit land comprised in Khasra No. 1687/203, Khata/Khatauni No. 134/173 min, land measuring 11-14-0 bigha, Situated in Phati Shamshi, Kothi Khokhan, Tehsil Bhunter, District Kullu, H.P.

4. It has been further stated that defendant No.3 has encroached upon the suit land for construction of HPPWD Mechanical Workshop and has constructed a steel sheds/buildings over suit land without acquiring the suit land of the plaintiffs under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act 1894. Neither the defendants has adopted any procedure under the Right to Fair Compensation, transparency in Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 nor any procedure laid down in the Transfer of Property Act. Since the land of the appellants/plaintiffs had been encroached by the respondents/defendants without paying the compensation as per the Land Acquisition Act, after occupying taking illegal possession of the suit land, therefore, the suit deserves to be decreed.

5. It has been further stated that though objections were raised by the plaintiffs on which assurance was given by the defendants for the payment of the appropriate compensation, however, no steps were taken by the defendants in that regard. Therefore, after occupying the suit land, the defendants have neither acquired the suit land as per the rules envisaged in Land Acquisition Act nor paid any kind of compensation to the plaintiffs. Defendants are occupying the suit land illegally and without any right or interest therein. Therefore, the plaintiff sought a decree for possession against the defendants and in alternative it was prayed that decree for mandatory injunction be passed by directing the defendants to acquire the suit land as per Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in land Acquisition and Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013.

6. The suit was contested by the defendants/State by filing written statement raising preliminary objections qua maintainability, cause of action, suppression of material facts, estoppel, valuation, limitation and jurisdiction etc. On merits, it was averred that though the plaintiffs are owners of the suit land, however, the suit land is in the possession of the defendants since 1966 and workshop is continuously running over the suit land. The defendants have installed Fabrication Workshop, Heavy workshop, Light workshop, office buildings and other store buildings for dismantled items over the suit land. The defendants had also invested more than Rs. 10,00,00,000/-for various structures over the suit land. It has further been submitted that the suit land was orally granted to the department by the predecessor in interest of the plaintiffs before 1966 for the welfare of the public and public. The predecessors of the plaintiffs had handed over the possession of the suit land to the department by oral grant, therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

7. A stand was taken that HPPWD has a mech