J U D G M E N T

By way this Regular Second Appeal, the appellants have assailed the judgment and decree dated 27.02.2016, passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. II, Hamirpur, H.P. in Civil Suit No. 30 of 2012, titled as Kartar Chand Vs. State of H.P. and others as well as judgment and decree dated 25.05.2019, passed by the Court of learned District Judge, Hamirpur, H.P. in Civil Appeal No. 38 of 2016, titled as State of H.P. and others Vs. Kartar Chand, respectively, in terms whereof, the suit for permanent prohibitory injunction as well as mandatory injunction filed by the respondent/plaintiff was decreed to the extent of grant of permanent prohibitory injunction and the appeal preferred against the same by the State was dismissed by the learned First Appellate Court.

2. I have heard learned Additional Advocate General as also learned counsel for the respondent. I have also gone through the judgments and decrees passed by both the learned Courts below.

3. Respondent/plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as ‘the plaintiff’) filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from changing the nature or carving out any road or demolishing any building etc. over the suit land comprised in Khata No. 66 min, Khatauni No. 66 min, Khasra No. 335/11, measuring 0-08 Marlas, as per Jamabandi for the year 2006-07, situated in Tika Karoh, Tappa Mehalta, Tehsil Bhoranj, District Hamirpur, H.P. and also for mandatory injunction, inter alia, on the ground that the plaintiff was owner in possession of the suit property alongwith other co-owners and though the adjoining land to the suit land was acquired for the purpose of construction of a road and compensation of land as well as structure was duly paid to the owners, but the suit land was not acquired for the said purpose and defendants being strangers qua the suit land, having no right, title or interest over the same, be restrained from demolishing the building of the plaintiff and other co-owners, situated over the suit land in the course of up-gradation/improvement of Una-Ner- Chowk road till due compensation thereof was paid to the plaintiff and other co-owners.

4. The suit was resisted by the defendants, inter alia, on the ground that the defendants were neither trying to demolish the building of the plaintiff or otherwise without paying any compensation and the facts were that work of construction of Una-Ner-Chowk road was awarded to C & C Company and the defendants were to hand over hindrance free vacated site to the Company for completion of work and for this purpose, the building of the plaintiff was required to be demolished, as the same was falling within the corridor of impact and the same was thus required to be removed in order to improve road geometrics and curves of the road. It was further the case of the defendants that plaintiff had already been paid Rs.8,40,900/- and Rs.28,700/- in lieu of complete existing structure/building as per World Bank guidelines and in this view of the matter, the defendants were not strangers to the land and it was rather the plaintiff, who had encroached upon part of the suit land approximately 1.5 meters belonging to HP PWD, for seeking eviction whereof of the plaintiff, proceedings were initiated before the SDM concerned.

5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, learned Trial Court framed the following issues:-

“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of permanent prohibitory injunction, as prayed for? OPP.

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of mandatory injunction, as prayed for? OPP.

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

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

5. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit by his own act and conduct, as alleged?

OPD.

6. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not well within time, as alleged? OPD.

7. Relief.

6. O