Kumar cannot claim any easementary right. The plaintiffs have also placed on record the site plan only of the house of Sanjiv Kumar. This rough site plan also shows the road/passage to the house of the plaintiff from other side. The location of the house of other plaintiffs is not reflected. In this way, also in my view, in no way, it can be held easementary right of passage as the houses of the plaintiffs/petitioners have passage from other side. The defendants/respondents have placed on record copy of notification and copy of award, which prove that the land of Village Theri had been acquired and compensation was paid to the land owners and the defendant/respondent has become owner of this land through which the plaintiffs are claiming passage. The findings of the learned first appellate Court are correct. The land was acquired for establishing Urban Estate and the defendant/respondent has every right to use this land in the manner it likes. The defendant/respondent has also to ensure security of the persons to whom the plots have been allotted out of this land. It is common knowledge of every person that the prices of the plots are much higher in the Urban Estates or in the planned colony developed by the PUDA etc., than the ordinary land. In this Urban Estate, the owners of the plots have paid huge amount. Therefore, the persons, whose houses are adjoining to this property, cannot take the benefits of the facilities provided to plot holders by the defendant/respondent. The plaintiffs/petitioners have no right to pass through the land of the respondents.
