IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. R.S.A. No. 301 of 2011. Reserved on: 12.08.2011. Decided on: 30.08.2011. _____________________________________________________ Kamla Devi. …Appellant. -Versus- N.T.P.C. and another. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. __________________________________________________________ For the appellant. : Mr. Naresh Verma, Advocate. For the respondents. : None. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge: This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 14.01.2011, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. in Civil Appeal No. 04 of 2009. 2. Material facts necessary for adjudication of this Regular Second Appeal, are that the appellant-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to “the plaintiff” for convenience sake) instituted a suit for permanent prohibitory and mandatory injunction for restraining the respondents-defendants (hereinafter referred to as “the defendants” for brevity sake) from raising/constructing hoardings (sign/welcome board) over the land comprised in Khasra No. 1069 (National Highway-21) in front of the path leading from Khasra No. 1069 to Khasra No. 740. According to the plaintiff, she is joint owner in possession of the land comprised in Khewat No. 448, Khatauni No. 518, bearing Khasra No. 740, land measuring 00- 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - 18-01 bighas, situated in Mauja Bhour/4, Tehsil Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P.. The land is adjoining to National Highway- 21, comprised in Khasra No. 1069. According to the plaintiff, she owns and possesses the land beyond Khasra No. 740 and has kept a path through this land to access from National Highway which is approximately 14 feet wide. She is using that said path for plying tractor for cultivation and agriculture related activities. She has also got easementary right of path/passage to Khasra No. 740 from Khasra No. 1069. 3. The suit was contested by the defendants. The defendants have admitted the construction/raising of sign/welcome board over the proposed site over Khasra No. 1069 (NH-21). According to the defendants, they have been entrusted with the construction of Kol Dam Hydro Electric Project through tripartite agreement with the Government of Himachal Pradesh, H.P.S.E.B. and N.T.P.C. Ltd., on Built Own Operate & Maintenance basis (BOOM). The District Administration in consultation with Executive Engineer HP PWD National Highway Division, Pandoh, has identified specific points for erection and fixing of the signboards. The defendants after being accorded permission/approval for fixing of two signboards vide letter dated 22.08.2007, started the construction of the proposed signboards. 4. No replication was filed by the plaintiff. Issues were framed by the learned trial court on 28.05.2008. The trial court dismissed the suit on 20.11.2008. Plaintiff preferred an appeal before the learned Fast Track Court, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P.. The same was dismissed on 14.01.2011. Hence, this Regular Second Appeal. - 3 - 5. Mr. Naresh Verma, learned counsel for the appellant, on the basis of substantial questions of law framed alongwith the memorandum of appeal, has strenuously argued that both the courts below have mis-read, mis-appreciated and mis-construed the evidence led by the plaintiff. According to him, the plaintiff has proved her easementary rights over the path/passage to Khasra No. 1069. 6. I have heard Mr. Naresh Verma, learned counsel for the appellant at length and gone through the pleadings carefully. 7. Plaintiff has appeared as PW-1. She has placed on record a copy of spot map Ex. P-1 and copy of Jamabandi for the year 2003-2004, Ex. P-2. The construction of hoardings (sign/welcome board) by the defendants is over Khasra No. 1069. No part of the suit land has touched for the said purpose. The plaintiff has not produced any document on record to prove that there exist recorded path measuring 14 feet wide leading from Khasra No. 740 to Khasra No. 1069. The suit land adjoining Khasra No. 1069 is wide, open and accessible from all the points. It was necessary for the plaintiff by leading tangible evidence to prove her case. Both the courts below have come to the right conclusion that since the plaintiff has failed to prove the existence of path, the question of acquiring of easementary right to use the said path does not arise. The plaintiff has also failed to prove that in what manner her rights would be infringed in case the hoardings (sign/welcome board) is raised/constructed by the defendants on National Highway-21. Both the courts below have correctly appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence. - 4 - There is no substantial question of law involved in this Regular Second Appeal. 8. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, there is no merit in this Regular Second Appeal and the same is dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge August 30, 2011. (bhupender) - 5 -