Regular Second Appeal No. 3935 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 3935 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : April 06, 2010 Parminder Singh alias Harminder Singh ....Appellant versus The State of Haryana and others ....Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate, for the appellant L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) CM No. 11977.C of 2009 For reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 43 days in refiling the appeal is condoned. CM No. 11978.C of 2009 For reasons mentioned in the application which is accompanied by affidavit, delay of 4 days in filing the appeal is condoned. CM No. 11979.C of 2009 Allowed as prayed for subject to all just exceptions. RSA No. 3935 of 2009 This is second appeal by plaintiff Parminder Singh alias Harminder Singh who has been partly successful in both the courts below. Regular Second Appeal No. 3935 of 2009 (O&M) -2- The plaintiff filed suit against State of Haryana and its Officers alleging that the defendants have laid a concrete road in the land of the plaintiff without acquiring the same and without paying compensation for it to the plaintiff. The plaintiff also alleged that Eucalyptus trees are standing in the remaining land of the plaintiff and he is owner thereof. The plaintiff accordingly sought mandatory injunction directing defendants to pay compensation to the plaintiff for his acquired land as per market value. Plaintiff also sought permanent injunction restraining the defendants from cutting and removing trees from the land of the plaintiff. Defendants, interalia, pleaded that plaintiff's land is adjacent to Raipur Rani – Naraingarh road, on left side. All the trees were planted by Forest department in the year 1978-79 and the same are part of protected forest. Defendants have right to cut and remove the same. It was also pleaded that the road in question was constructed in the year 1965 without any objection from the plaintiff and the plaintiff now has no right to raise any objection. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ambala City vide judgment and decree dated 11.4.2008 partly decreed the suit regarding trees but dismissed the suit regarding plaintiff's claim of compensation for the land underneath the road. First appeal preferred by the plaintiff has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Ambala vide judgment and decree dated 6.11.2008. Feeling aggrieved, the instant second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff claiming relief of compensation for the land in question. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. Regular Second Appeal No. 3935 of 2009 (O&M) -3- The plaintiff while appearing in the witness box admitted that the road was constructed in the year 1965 by the State authorities although in the plaint, the plaintiff alleged that the road had been constructed only two years before the filing of the suit. Suit was instituted on 18.11.1999. The suit was thus instituted 34 years after the road had been constructed. Obviously, the plaintiff could not claim compensation for the land underneath the road after 34 years of laying of the road. The plaintiff during the interregnum of 34 years never made any claim for compensation. No document has been placed on record to depict that prior to filing of the suit, the plaintiff ever raised any claim for compensation for the land in question. In view of the aforesaid, it is apparent that the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of mandatory injunction for compensation of the land in question. The said relief has been rightly declined to the plaintiff by the courts below. There is no infirmity in the said finding of the lower courts. No question of law much less substantial question of law arises for determination in the instant second appeal. The appeal is found to be without any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. ( L.N. Mittal ) April 06, 2010 Judge 'tiwana'