Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1267 (HP)

Government Of H P v. Kansi Ram

2018-07-10

TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN

body2018
JUDGMENT Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. - The appellants/defendants being aggrieved by the judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below, whereby the suit of the respondents/plaintiffs for declaration and mandatory injunction came to be allowed, have filed the instant appeal. The parties hereinafter shall be referred to as the appellants and respondents. 2. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the respondents filed a suit for declaration and mandatory injunction on the allegations that the appellants had constructed a road over the land comprised in Khata-Khatauni No. 58/107, Khasra Nos. 391, 507, 508, 511 and 658, kitas-5, measuring 06-08-18 bighas, situated in Mauza Bhanthal/479, Tehsil Karsog, District Mandi, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the suit land) about 30-35 years back without granting any compensation and, therefore, they be directed to acquire the land. 3. The appellants did not contest the factual position, but only claimed that the suit was time barred. 4. On 11.01.2012, the learned trial Court framed the following issues:- "1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to be declared owners of the suit land? OPP. 2. Whether the entries in the column of possession in favour of defendants No.1 and 2 are incorrect and liable to be declared null and void? OPP. 3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the decree of mandatory injunction as alleged? OPP. 4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the decree of possession as prayed for? OPP. 5. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable? OPD. 6. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is barred by principle of estoppel? OPD. 7. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is not properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD. 8. Relief." 5. The learned trial Court after framing the issues and recording evidence partly decreed the suit on 19.01.2013 by directing the appellants to acquire the land after paying compensation to the respondents as per law. 6. The appeal filed by the appellants against the said judgment and decree came to be dismissed by the learned first appellate Court on 11.09.2014 constraining the appellants to file the instant appeal. 7. 6. The appeal filed by the appellants against the said judgment and decree came to be dismissed by the learned first appellate Court on 11.09.2014 constraining the appellants to file the instant appeal. 7. Here, again the only point that has been urged on behalf of the appellants is with regard to the suit being not maintainable as it was apparently barred by period of limitation and could not have therefore been held to be maintainable much less decreed by the learned trial Court. 8. Evidently, not only is the title of the respondents not disputed, rather the appellants have categorically admitted in their written statement in para-9 that the acquisition proceedings have been started and compensation will be paid to the owners of the land as soon as they are completed. Therefore, once the appellants themselves have held out that the acquisition proceedings for acquiring the land of the respondents have already been initiated and compensation thereafter will be paid to all the owners of the land, then they are clearly estopped from contesting the suit, much less can be permitted to raise the plea of limitation. Even otherwise, once there is acknowledgement of the liability on the part of the appellants, the period of limitation would automatically get extended. This is a fit case where estoppel by writing is clearly applicable on all fours. Thus, no fault can be found with the judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below. 9. No question of of law much less substantial question of law arises for consideration. 10. Accordingly, I find no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.