after hearing the learned counsel of both the parties. At the instance of the appellant, measurement of the land was done and a report was also submitted to the concerned authority by the Circle Officer that approximately 50 decimals of land of the appellant was used for construction of a village road at the cost of the government. However, we find from the counter affidavit of the State that a macadamized road was constructed over an already existing kuccha road in the village, which fact has not been controverted by the appellant. If, at all, there had been any proceeding of acquisition of land, the land of other land holders also would have been acquired for the purposes of construction of the road. There is no detail provided by the appellant whether the road existed from before; whether it was acquiesced by the land holder/land holders that such area of land be used for public purposes; whether any right to easement had already been created and for how long and whether other land holders had also acquiesced in the same fashion or were granted compensation to the exclusion of the appellant. In the absence of all such details and the categorical version of the State that with Government aid, road was constructed on an already existing kuccha road, we find it difficult to accede to the request of the appellant to look into the matter in greater detail.
