Dismissed

Des Raj and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC18 Jan 2012RSA/3681/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In second appeal, the High Court dismissed a suit by owners for mandatory injunction to acquire land used for road construction and permanent injunction to stop tree cutting. The court held the suit was not maintainable as civil courts cannot direct the State to acquire land, the relief was inappropriate, and the suit was time-barred. The injunction regarding trees was also dismissed as the State

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed; the suit for mandatory injunction and permanent injunction against the State was not maintainable and stood dismissed.

Des Raj and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

RSA No.3681 of 2011

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

RSA No.3681 of 2011

¶5

Date of Decision: January 18, 2012

Des Raj and others

.......Appellants

Versus

The State of Haryana and others

¶10

.......Respondents

¶11

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA

¶12

Present: Mr.Bhag Singh, Advocate for the appellants.

¶13

<><><>

¶14

TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA, J.

¶15

The plaintiff-appellants are in second appeal having been unsuccessful in both the Courts below.

¶16

The plaintiffs filed a suit for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to pay the compensation of land measuring 3 Kanals comprised in khasra No.33/11 min situated in village Lalpur, Tehsil Naraingarh, District Ambala by acquiring the same as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and for a consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from cutting and removing the eucalyptus trees standing in the land in question. The pleadings set up by the plaintiffs were that they were owners in possession of land measuring 5 Kanals 17 Marlas situated in village Lalpur, Tehsil Naraingarh and District Ambala and the same was chahi agricultural land and was situated near the Gohar which, in turn, led to village Taprian Ruldu Ki and village Ferozepur. It was averred that there existed a link road which leads to village Taprian Ruldu Ki and village

¶17

RSA No.3681 of 2011

¶18

¶19

Ferozepur from the main road and which is commonly known as Naraingarh-Kalpi road. The plaintiff had planted eucalyptus trees and the State Department of PWD(B&R) had constructed the link road. Defendants No.1 to 3 had constructed the road in khasra No.33/11 from NorthernEastern corner to Southern-Western corner without acquiring the same. It was stated that the defendants have never acquired the land of the plaintiffs and as such, the plaintiffs were entitled to seek compensation and a further relief of injunction restraining the defendants from cutting and removing the trees.

¶20

Upon notice, written statement was filed stating that the road had been constructed in the year 1980. There existed a Gohar of 33' in width and the road had been constructed in place of this Gohar to the extent of 12' width, leaving kacha berm to the extent of 10-1/2' on both sides. Insofar as the trees are concerned, it was stated that the same had been planted by defendant No.4.

¶21

The trial Court after having heard counsel for the parties dismissed the suit, vide judgment and decree dated 18.11.2010. The appeal filed by the plaintiff-appellants has also been dismissed vide impugned judgment and decree dated 7.6.2011 passed by the Additional District Judge, Ambala.

¶22

I have heard learned counsel for the appellants.

¶23

The entire case of the plaintiff-appellants hinges on undisputed facts that 3 Kanals of their land was used for the purposes of construction of road by the State of Haryana, Department of PWD (B&R) without acquiring the same. The plaintiff-appellant No.1 while appearing as PW1 and PW3 Alisher have themselves admitted that the road has been in existence for the

¶24

RSA No.3681 of 2011

¶25

¶26

last 15-16 years. Even the possession of the land, upon which the road had been so constructed, is with the respondent-defendant Department, admittedly for the last 15-16 years. The plaintiff-appellants have not filed a suit seeking possession of the land but, on the other hand, have filed a suit seeking the relief of mandatory injunction. A civil Court cannot issue any directions to the State to acquire a piece of land and accordingly, to grant compensation thereof. Clearly, the suit for mandatory injunction was not the appropriate remedy to be available by the plaintiff-appellants.

¶27

Even as regards the relief of grant of permanent injunction regarding cutting and removing of eucalyptus trees, the findings recorded are against the plaintiff-appellants as in terms of evidence led i.e. the enumeration register, Exhibit D2, it was clearly proved that the trees, in fact, had been planted by the defendant-respondent Department itself.

¶28

There is absolutely no question of law, much less substantial question of law, that arises for determination in the present second appeal. The plaintiff-appellants' suit seeking relief of mandatory injunction and permanent injunction in the light of the facts enumerated hereinabove was clearly not maintainable and was also time barred.

¶29

The present appeal must fail and is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶30

Appeal dismissed.

¶31

JANUARY 18, 2012 SRM

¶32

( TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA ) JUDGE

¶33

Note: Whether to be referred to Reporter? Yes/No

Des Raj and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Des Raj and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kamal Singh and Ors. Vs Gram Panchayat Daulatpur and Ors.

U.H.B.N.L. and Anr. Vs Jai Jagdembhey Steel Pvt. Ltd.

Brij Lal and Ors. Vs Sukhdyal Singh and Ors.

Malkiat Singh Vs Kesar Singh & Ors.

Raja Ram Vs Ravinder Kaur & Ors.

Major Singh Vs Surjit Singh