HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL (Court’s order whether the case is or not approved for reporting) Description of the case S.A. No. 85 of 2004 Bachan Singh Vs. Sate of Uttaranchal Approved for reporting Date of Decision: 07-04-2008. Initial of Judge: ………………… ………………… ………………… HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL SECOND APPEAL NO. 85 OF 2004 Bachan Singh ….Plaintiff/ Appellant. Versus State of Uttaranchal ….Defendant/ Respondent. 7.4.2008 Hon’ble Rajesh Tandon, J. Heard Sri R.P. Nautiyal, counsel for the appellant and Sri R.C. Arya, standing counsel for the respondent. 2. By the present Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, appellant has prayed for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 27.9.2004 passed by the District Judge, Chamoli in Civil Appeal No. 5 of 2003 State of Uttaranchal Vs. Bacnan Singh arising out of judgment and decree dated 30.10.2002 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chamoli Camp at Karanprayag in Original Suit No. 74 of 1993 Bachan Singh Vs. D.M. Chamoli & Others. 3. Present second appeal has been admitted on the following substantial question of law: “A) Whether without setting aside the specific findings, recorded by the trial court upon due appraisal of entire evidence on records, was the appellate court having jurisdiction to set aside the decree, passed by the trial court? B) Whether the lower appellate court committed manifest error of law in ignoring the important fact that the report of Advocate Commissioner was an independent evidence, which cannot be disbelieved without any sufficient reason ? C) Whether the lower appellate court failed to read any finding with regard to important fact that the construction of road was made on the land of plaintiff/ appellant, which was established by the cogent evidence and, hence the lower appellate court committed manifest error of law in allowing the appeal and setting aside the decree passed by the trial court? D) Whether the lower appellate court wrongly interpreted the evidence on records and wrongly allowed the appeal, filed on behalf of defendants/ respondents? E) Whether the lower appellate court presumed the evidence, which are not available on records in favour of defendant/ respondent?” 4. Briefly stated, a suit was filed by the plaintiff/ appellant being Original Suit No. 74 of 1994 Bachan Singh Vs. D.M. Chamoli & Others praying to the following effect: ^^ oknh fuEu fyf[kr vuqrks’k dh ;kpuk djrk gSA 1& fd izfroknhx.k }kjk tks peksyh cSjkydq.M eksVj jksM ls peksykukFk ds efUnj ds Åijh fglls ls rglhy rd yhad eksVj jksM cuk;h tk jgh gSA mlds fuekZ.k dk;Z dks jksdk tk;A 2& oknh dks izfroknhx.k ls muds }kjk oknh dks tks [kljk ua0 1395] = 1396] 1397] 1398 ds if”pe fn”kk ds vk/kk ukyh tqt tks izfroknx.k }kjk eksVj fuekZ.k ls nck nh xbZ gS] ml ij rugk dCtk fnyk;k tk; vkSj oknhx.k dks vU; Hkwfe ij vfrdze.k djus ls jksd fn;k tk;A rFkk mMn vkSj lks;kchu tks oknh dh Qly dk tks izfroknhx.k us vius eksVj jksM fuekZ.k fd;k gS og 5]000@& dh ikap gtkj /kujkf”k dks izfroknhx.k ls oknh dks fnyk;k tk;A 2& vU; vuqrks’k tks U;k;ky; mfpr le>s oknh ds gd esa iznku fd;k tk;A 3& fd nkok [kpkZ izfroknhx.k ls oknh dks fnyk;k tkos A ** 5. According to the plaint averments, the plaintiff is the permanent resident of Chamoli and is owner of Khasra No. 1395, 1396, 1397, 1398, 1399 and 1400. The plaintiff has submitted that an area of 8 mutthi land in Khahra No. 1399 and 1400 has been acquired by the Public Works Department for constructing Chamoli Baraskund Motor Road. It has further been submitted that the defendants/ respondents are trying to construct a motor road without acquiring the land of the plaintiff i.e. Khasra No. 1395, 1396, 1397, and 1398. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff filed an amendment application bringing a fact that a road has been constructed on half Nali bhumidhari land of the plaintiff i.e. Khasra No. 1395, 1396, 1397, and 1398 and further half Nali land has come under the debris of the road. The plaintiff has claimed compensation of Rs. 5,000/- regarding damage to half Nali land of the plaintiff and has further claimed possession of the land whereupon the road has been constructed. 6. The defendants have filed a written statement denying the plaint averments. It has been denied that any link road has been constructed over the land of the plaintiff/appellant. It has further been stated that the road has been constructed on the government land. 7. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court has framed following issues: ^^1& D;k izfroknh.k us fyad eksVj ekxZ dk fuekZ.k oknh ds [ksr ua0 1395 ls 1398 dh Hkwfe esa fd;k gS vkSj oknh ds [ksrksa dh Hkwfe esa voS/k dCkt fd;k gS \ 2& D;k fookfnr eksVj ekxZ [kljk ua0 1518 esa cuk gS] tSlk fd izfroknhx.k us vius izfrokni= esa dFku fd;k gS \ 3& D;k [krkSuh [kkrk la[;k 27 ds [ksr la[;k 1395 ls 1398 esa oknh }kjk cksbZ xbZ mMn o lks;kchu dh Qly dks izfroknhx.k us u’V djds oknh dks vadu 5000-00 :Ik;s dk uqdlku igqWpk;k gS \ 4& D;k oknh fdlh vuqrks’k dks izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS \ 8. The plaintiff has filed per list 8Ga1 nine documents i.e. copy of the Naksha Najri Paper No. 9Ga, copy of the map of the land of the plaintiff, Village Kshetrapal, Pargana Chamoli Papers No. 10Ga1 to 10Ga/2, application for inspection regarding damage filed by Jayanti Devi W/o Darshan Singh, Village Kshetrapal, District Chamoli to Pargana Magistrate, Chamoli, Information Letter given by Nagar Palika Gopeshwar in respect of notice given by the plaintiff through his Advocate No. 1886/ 4-Sa-Nirman/93-94 dated 30th October, 1993, application dated 18.10.1993, copy of the notice given to the Executive Officer, Nagar Palika dated 18.10.1993 Paper No. 14 Ga, copy of the application given by the plaintiff to the District Magistrate regarding spot inspection and restraining the construction of Jeep Road dated 13.9.1993 Paper No. 15 Ga, copy of the Khatauni, Village Kshetrapal, Patwari Circle, Chamoli Khatauni Year 1399 to 1404 Fasli with record of land of the plaintiff 1395 to 1400 Paper No. 16 Ga. Apart from the above, the plaintiff/ appellant has filed per list 29 Ga two documents i.e. application moved by the plaintiff before the District Magistrate regarding restraining to construction of Jeep road, compensation for the damage to the land due to debris Paper No. 30 Ga and copy of the application moved by the plaintiff before the District Magistrate Chamoli Paper No. 31 Ga. Further per list 111 Ga, the plaintiff/ appellant has filed approval letter for lease given by the office of Tehsildar, Chamoli Paper No. 112 Ga. Towards the oral evidence, the plaintiff himself has been examined as P.W. 1. 9. The defendants have filed per list 22 Ga two documents i.e. copy of the sport map Paper No. 23 Ga, copy of the Khatauni Paper No. 24 Ga. Per List 66 Ga, two documents have been filed i.e. map made on the spot according to the settlement Paper No. 67 Ga and Khasra of the land in dispute Paper No. 68 Ga. Towards the oral evidence, one Ashok Nautiyal, Patwari, Chamoli has been examined as D.W. 1. 10. While deciding the issue no. 1 as to whether the defendants have constructed the link motor road on the land Khet No. 1395 to 1398 of the plaintiff and have illegally taken possession over the said land of the plaintiff, the trial Court has recorded a finding to the following effect: ^^ bl izdkj izfroknhx.k ds }kjk oknh ds [ksr uEcj 1398 ds lEiw.kZ Hkkx ij eksVj fuekZ.k dk;Z fd;k tkuk lkfcr gksrk gS vkSj oknh ds vU; fdlh [ksr ij ¼1395] 1396] 1397½ ij eksVj fuekZ.k dk;Z ik;k tkuk fl) ugha gksrk gS] ek= lMd dh feV~Vh ls mijksDr [ksr ncuk ik;s tkrs gSaA pwafd izfroknhx.k Li’V :Ik ls oknh dh Hkwfe ij fdlh Hkh lMd fuekZ.k dk;Z ls budkj djrs gSa] tcfd mijksDr fo”ys’k.k ls ;g fl) gks pqdk gS fd izfroknhx.k ds }kjk oknh ds [ksr uEcj 1398 ds lEiw.kZ Hkkx ij eksVj fuekZ.k fd;k gSA blds vfrfjDr dksbZ Hkh dk;Zokgh oknh ds [ksr uEcj 1398] ftl ij izfroknhx.k ds }kjk eksVj fuekZ.k fd;k x;k gS] dks vf/kxzghr fd;s tkus gsrq fu;ekuqlkj vFkok oknh ls s lqyg ds vk/kkj ij fd;k tkuk mHk; Ik{kksa dks lqus tkus ds ckn rFkk i=koyh easa miyC/k ekSf[kd ,oa nLrkosth lk{; ds vuqlkj ugha ik;k tkrk] ftlls fd Li’V :Ik ls izfroknh Ik{k dh vksj ls oknh ds [ksr uEcj & 1398 ij vfrdze.k fd;k tkuk rFkk voS/k dCtk fd;k tkuk dh laKk;sa vkrk gSA bl lEcU/k eas izfroknhx.k }kjk oknh dks uk rks dksbZ eqvkotk fn;k x;k vkSj u gh oknh dh Hkwfe ds ewY; dh /kujkf”k oknh dks vnk dh x;h] ftlls izfroknhx.k dh vksj ls Li’V :Ik ls oknh ds [ksr uEcj 1398 ij fyad eksVj fuekZ.k dk;Z ij voS/k :Ik ls vfrdze.k dj dCtk fd;k x;k gSA blh lEcu/k esa ;gka ,d rF; tks esjs lkeus vk;k gS og oknh ds }kjk is”k fd;s x;s nLrkost tfj;s QsgfjLr 111x dkxt la[;k 112 x dk;kZy; rglhynkj] peksyh }kjk oknh dks fn;k x;k yht Lohd`r Ik= gS] gkykafd ;g lkfcr ugha fd;k x;k gS fdUrq ;g vly gS vkSj izLrqr izdj.k esa bldks lUnHkZ fn;k tkuk eSa U;k;fgr esa mfpr ikrk gwW mDr nLrkost fuEu izdkj ls fy[kk x;k gS ^^dk;kZy; rglhynkj peksyh] Jh cpu flag pkyd U;kf;d foHkkx peksyh d`0 vkidks eSa yht ij ,d ukyh Hkwfe vkt gh ekSds Ikj nawxk vkSj vki ml Hkwfe ds fy;s yht ij pkgus ckcr vkt gh vthZ ns ns] rkfd eSa vkt gh iVokjh ls Ik=koyh rhu fnu vUnj rS;kj djok yawxk] vc vki viuh ukfyl ls jkthukek is”k dj nsa] gLrk{kj vLi’V] fnukafdr 28&2&1994] rglhynkj] peksyhA mijksDr nLrkost ls vuqeku yxk;k tk ldrk gS fd fdlh u fdlh izdkj ls izfroknh Ik{k dh vksj dks ;g tkudkjh gS fd oknh dk {ksr lMd fuekZ.k dk;Z esa dVk gS] ftldk fd fu;ekuqlpkj uk rks vf/kxzg.k gqvk gS vkSj uk gh bl lEcU/k esa dksbZ eqvkotk oknh dks vnk fd;k x;k gS] vU;Fkk fcuk otg nku esas vFkok nku dh “kDy esa oknh dks iV~Vs ij fn;s tkus okyh ckr tSls fd dkxt la0 112 ea dgh x;h gS] ugha fy[kh tk ldrh A vr% mijksDr fo”ys’k.k ls ;g ik;k tkrk gS rFkk fl) gksrk gS fd oknh ds [ksr la[;k 1397 ls 1398 dh Hkwfe esa ls ek= oknh dh Hkwfe [ksr uEcj 1398 ij izfroknhx.k dh vksj ls ,d fyad eksVj ekxZ fuekZ.k dj voS/k dCtk fd;k tkuk ik;k tkrk gS vkSj mijksDrkuqlkj okn fcUnq la0 1 oknh ds [ksr ua0 1398 ds lEcU/k esa oknh ds Ik{k esa ldkjkRed :Ik ls fu.khZr fd;k tkrk gSA** 11. While deciding the issue no. 2 as to whether the disputed motor road is constructed over Khasra No. 1518 as has been mentioned in the written statement, the trial Court has recorded a finding that it is proved that the disputed road passes via Khasra No. to 1398. This issue has been decided accordingly. 12. While deciding the issue no. 3 as to whether the defendants have damaged the crops of Urad and Soyabin sown by the plaintiff in Khet No. 1395 to 1398 in Khatauni Khata No. 27 whereby the plaintiffs have suffered loss of Rs. 5,000/-, the trial Court has recorded a finding that it is proved from the issue no. 1 that the defendant without taking the consent of the plaintiff has acquired the land of the plaintiff and has constructed the road over that plot and covered the Khet Nos. 1395, 1396, 1397 and 1398 by the debris. Thus, the plaintiff has suffered loss due to debris thrown by the defendants. This issue has been decided in affirmative. 13. While deciding the issue no. 4 with regard to relief, the trial Court has recorded a finding to the following effect: bl rjg pawfd [ksr uEcj 1398 ij lMd cu pqdh gS vkSj tSlk fd oknh ds vuqrks’k ds lEcU/k esa ;g dgk tk pqdk gS fd pwafd lMd iw.kZ gks pqdh gS vkSj ml ij vkokxeu tkjh gS vkSj mlds jksds tkus dk dksbZ vkSfpR; ugha gSA blh izdkj [ksr ua0 1398 ij oknh dks dCtk okil ugha fnyk;k tk ldrk gS D;ksfd ml ij lMd fuekZ.k gksdj lEiUu gks pqdk gS] vfirq blds mldks fu;ekuqlkj mldh Hkwfe ds ewY; rFkk blh lEcU/k esa gtkZuk fnyok;k tk ldrk gS vkSj blh ds lkFk oknh mldh Qly ds uqdlku dh HkjikbZ eq0 5000&00 :Ik;s izfroknhx.k ls ikus dk gdnkj gS A ** 14. Aggrieved by the said order, the defendants have preferred an appeal being Civil Appeal No. 5 of 2003 State of Uttaranchal Vs. Bachan Singh. 15. The appellate Court has allowed the appeal by reversing the finding to the following effect: ^^ fo}ku voj U;k;ky; ds vuqlkj dkxt la[;k 112 x rglhynkj }kjk oknh dks ,d ukyh Hkwfe yht ij fn, tkus gsrq fy[kk x;k Fkk ftlls ;g iznf”kZr gksrk gS fd oknh dh Hkwfe ij lMd cukbZ xbZ FkhA mijksDr nLrkost fdlh Hkh lk{kh }kjk lkcr ugha fd;k x;k gS vkSj oknh fdlh Hkh lk{kh dks is”k djus esa vlQy jgk gS fd mijksDr nLrkost rglhynkj] peksyh }kjk fy[kk x;k FkkA vr% dkxt la[;k 112 x ds vk/kkj ij fdlh Hkh izdkj dh vo/kkj.kk voj U;k;ky; }kjk ugha dh tk ldrh A esjh jk; esa bl rF; dks lkfcr djus dk Hkkj oknh ij Fkk fd mldh Hkwfe ls lMd dk fuekZ.k gqvk gSA bl lEcU/k esa fo}ku voj U;k;ky; us ftl dfe”uj fjiksVZ dks vk/kkj ekudj fu.kZ; ikfjr fd;k gS] mijksDr dfe”uj fjiksVZ Åij of.kZr dj.kksa ls fu”pk;d lk{; ugha ekuh tk ldrhA esjh jk; esa fo}ku voj U;k;ky; us dfe”uj fjiksVZ dks fu”pk;d lk{; ekudj Hkwy dh gS vkSj fo}ku voj U;k;ky; dk iwjk fu.kZ; ek= dfe”uj fjiksVZ ij vk/kkfjr gksus ds dkj.k vikLr fd, tkus ;ksX; gSA ** 16. The grievance of the plaintiff/ appellant is that he is entitled for the compensation to the extent of land which has been taken by the defendants respondents for constructing a Link Motor Road. This point has been considered by the appellate Court. 17. In view of the above, two questions arise, which are to the following effect: (1) Whether any link motor road has been constructed on the land of the plaintiff? (2) Whether in view of the orders passed by the District Magistrate from time to time the land of the plaintiff/ appellant has been taken on account of the construction of link motor road? (3) What amount of compensation, the appellant is entitled? 18. The matter is sent back to the appellate Court for deciding the appeal afresh taking into consideration and deciding the aforesaid two questions. 19. Subject to aforesaid, Second Appeal is allowed. No. order as to costs. (Rajesh Tandon, J.) 7.4.2008 Rathour