JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. 1. This Regular Second Appeal has been instituted against Judgment and Decree dated 15.12.2006 rendered by the learned Additional District Judge, Shimla camp at Rohru, in Civil Appeal No. 44-R/13 of 2005. 2. “Key facts” necessary for the adjudication of the present appeal that the appellant-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as 'plaintiff' for convenience sake) filed a suit against the respondents-defendants (hereinafter referred to as 'defendants’ for convenience sake) for declaration, mandatory injunction and seeking direction to the defendants to initiate and complete the acquisition proceedings in respect of land of the plaintiff and damage to his fruit bearing trees. According to the averments made in the plaint, plaintiff and proforma defendant Resham Dei were joint owners of the land comprised in Khata Khatauni No. 47/87 min. Khasra No. 857, 948, 965, 214 situate in Chak Shiladesh, Tehsil Chairgaon, District Shimla, HP measuring 0-17-33, 0-30-94, 0-13-27 and 0-13-29, respectively. However, in the family arrangement, suit land was allotted to the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, defendants No. 1 to 3 without complying with the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, constructed a road known as "Tikkari-Larot-Dodra Kwar road" on the land of the plaintiff, but no compensation was paid to the plaintiff. Fruit bearing plants were also damaged. 3. Suit was contested by the defendants. According to them, road was constructed in the year 1987. At that time, plaintiff never objected. Rather, at that time, he was working as Mate on the "Tikkari-Larot-Dodra Kwar road." Road was constructed on his request. Plaintiff waived off his claim of compensation as the road was constructed with his consent in the year 1987. 4. Issues were framed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) on 22.3.2004. Learned trial Court dismissed the suit on 29.11.2004. Plaintiff filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Shimla camp at Rohru. He dismissed the appeal on 15.12.2006. Hence, this Regular Second Appeal. 5. The appeal was admitted on 15.9.2009 on the following substantial question of law: “Whether the findings of judgment and decree passed by he Court below are a result of complete misreading, misinterpretation of the evidence and material on record and against the settled position of law?” 6. Mr. He dismissed the appeal on 15.12.2006. Hence, this Regular Second Appeal. 5. The appeal was admitted on 15.9.2009 on the following substantial question of law: “Whether the findings of judgment and decree passed by he Court below are a result of complete misreading, misinterpretation of the evidence and material on record and against the settled position of law?” 6. Mr. Bharat Bhushan Vaid, Advocate, on the basis of substantial question of law has vehemently argued that the respondents could not construct road through the plaintiff’s land without initiating acquisition proceedings and without paying him compensation. He then contended that the learned Courts below have not appreciated the evidence, oral as well as documentary. 7. Mr. Parmod Thakur, Additional Advocate General, has supported the judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the record carefully. 9. Appellant, Chandervir has appeared as PW-1. According to him, he was owner of the land alongwith his mother. According to him, the road namely "Tikkari-Larot-Dodra Kwar road" was constructed by the defendants 17-18 years back, without acquiring his land. He was not paid any compensation. He wrote application to the SDO and Executive Engineer of the Public Works Department vide Exts. P1, P2 and P3. He also issued a legal notice to the defendants through his advocate vide Ext. P9 against postal receipts Exts. P10 to P12. Copy of Jamabandi for the year 1997-98 was Ext. P13. In his cross-examination, he admitted that the road was constructed 17-18 years back. He denied the suggestion that the road was constructed with his consent. 10. Hira Singh (PW-2) testified that when "Tikkari-Larot-Dodra Kwar road" was constructed, at that time, ten fruit bearing trees of the plaintiff were damaged by the Public Works Department. Land acquisition proceedings were not initiated. He has also denied the suggestion that the road was constructed with the consent of the plaintiff. 11. Chevari Nand (PW-3) testified that the "Tikkari-Larot-Dodra Kwar road" was constructed by the Public Works Department through the land of the plaintiff without his permission. Damage was caused to the fruit bearing trees. Plaintiff was not paid any compensation by the defendants. He has admitted that the plaintiff was working as a Mate in the Public Works Department. He has denied the suggestion that the road was constructed with the consent of the plaintiff. 12. Damage was caused to the fruit bearing trees. Plaintiff was not paid any compensation by the defendants. He has admitted that the plaintiff was working as a Mate in the Public Works Department. He has denied the suggestion that the road was constructed with the consent of the plaintiff. 12. Mahender Singh (PW-4) testified that 15-16 apple trees were uprooted while undertaking construction of the road. Plaintiff has not been paid any compensation. 13. Anil Pathik Junior Engineer (DW-1) testified that the road was constructed in the year 1987. Plaintiff never objected to the same. Road was constructed with the consent of the plaintiff. Department has constructed a wall on Khasra No. 948. No trees were damaged. He admitted, in his cross-examination, that the plaintiff and his mother were the owners of the land. He also admitted that no acquisition proceedings were initiated before the construction. He admitted that no compensation was paid to the plaintiff. 14. Mouji Ram (DW-2) testified that the road was constructed in the year 1987. Plaintiff has never objected to it. Rather, he was working as a Mate at that time. He also admitted that no compensation was paid to the plaintiff by the defendants. 15. Chain Ram (DW-3) testified that the road was constructed 20-30 years back. Plaintiff never objected to it. Rather, he was working as a Mate. In his cross-examination, he admitted that no compensation was paid to the plaintiff by the Department. 16. It is admitted case of the parties that the plaintiff is the owner of the land alongwith his mother. Road namely "Tikkari-Larot-Dodra Kwar road" was constructed. Damage was also caused to the trees of the plaintiff as per the statements of PW-1 Chandervir, PW-2 Hira Singh, PW-3 Chevari Nand and PW-4 Mahender Singh. Plaintiff has made representation vide Exts. P1, P2 and P3. He has also issued a legal notice vide Ext. P9. Copies of the postal receipts are Exts. P10 to P12. Copy of Jamabandi for the year 1997-98 is Ext. P13. DW-1 Shri Anil Pathik has admitted that the plaintiff was the owner of the suit land alongwith his mother. Road was constructed but the acquisition proceedings were not initiated. Plaintiff has not been paid compensation. DW-2 Mouji Ram admitted that the road was constructed but no compensation was paid to the plaintiff. P13. DW-1 Shri Anil Pathik has admitted that the plaintiff was the owner of the suit land alongwith his mother. Road was constructed but the acquisition proceedings were not initiated. Plaintiff has not been paid compensation. DW-2 Mouji Ram admitted that the road was constructed but no compensation was paid to the plaintiff. Similarly, DW-3 Chain Ram deposed that the road was constructed but no compensation was paid to the plaintiff. PW-1 Chandervir has denied that the road was constructed with his consent. Similarly, PW-2 Hira Singh has denied the suggestion that the road was constructed with the consent of the plaintiff. PW-3 Chevari Nand has also denied that the road was constructed with the consent of the plaintiff. Plaintiff alongwith proforma defendant has been recorded as owner-in-possession of the suit land. Defendants have not led any tangible evidence that the plaintiff has ever given his consent for the construction of the "Tikkari-Larot-Dodra Kwar road" without compensation. Learned trial Court has erred in law by dismissing the suit on the ground of limitation. Land of the plaintiff could not be utilized for the construction of the road without paying him compensation. Plaintiff has served legal notice on the defendants and has made representations Exts. P1 to P3. Moreover, the plaintiff has never waived off his claim of compensation. The first appellate Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the suit was not barred by limitation. However, first appellate Court has erred in law by relegating the plaintiff to avail alternative remedy. The right to property is not only a constitutional and statutory right but is also a human right. Defendants could not construct road through the land of the plaintiff without initiating acquisition proceedings and without paying compensation to the plaintiff. Defendants have no right to construct road without express permission of the plaintiff, even though the plaintiff was working as a Mate on the same road. In land acquisition proceedings, Land Acquisition Officer could not declare plaintiff owner of the land. Land Acquisition Collector can not issue injunction directing parties not to interfere in the possession of each other. Only a civil Court is competent to issue such a direction. Plaintiff has also asked for mandatory injunction. Thus the civil Court had the jurisdiction in the matter. 17. Substantial question of law is answered accordingly. 18. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed. Only a civil Court is competent to issue such a direction. Plaintiff has also asked for mandatory injunction. Thus the civil Court had the jurisdiction in the matter. 17. Substantial question of law is answered accordingly. 18. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed. Judgment and decree dated 15.12.2006 rendered by the learned Additional District Judge, Shimla camp at Rohru, in Civil Appeal No. 44-R/13 of 2005 is set aside. The suit of the plaintiff is decreed. Defendants No. 1 to 3 are directed to initiate the acquisition proceedings qua the land of the plaintiff as mentioned in the plaint, within a period of three months from today and complete the acquisition proceedings within a period of one year, thereafter. 19. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. No costs.