R.S.A. No.729 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No.729 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : 23.03.2009 State of Haryana and others ....Appellants Versus Ram Kumar and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Ms.Rajat Goyal, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for the appellants. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. This appeal by the State of Haryana is directed against the judgments of the learned trial Court dated 19.1.2007 and the first Appellate Court dated 15.11.2008. The plaintiffs/respondents filed a suit alleging that they were owners in possession of the land measuring 102 bighas 2 biswas, situated in village Dariapur, Tehsil Tosham, District Bhiwani and that the defendants/appellants have constructed the road from Miran to Hisar and utilized the land measuring 13 bighas 16 biswas, owned and possession by the plaintiffs/respondents. It was alleged that the suit land was never acquired by the defendants/appellants as per rules and no compensation was given to them. It was further pleaded that mutation No.406 was sanctioned in favour of the R.S.A. No.729 of 2009 (O&M) -2- appellants on 13.4.1970. The appellants are alleged to have acquired the land comprised in Khasra No.686/471/2(6-11), 675/18(4-12), 667/12(8-8), vide Award No.2 dated 26.9.2002 and disbursed the compensation to some persons but the land of the respondents was possessed by the appellants without any compensation. A notice was served upon the appellants on 8.11.2002 but they refused to react to it. The appellants, who were defendants in the suit, contended that the then owners had sold the land measuring 13 bighas 16 biswas comprised in Khasra No.485/2(8-9) and 486/2(5-7) situated in village Dariapur, Tehsil Tosham, District Bhiwani to the appellants for construction of road without any compensation and so mutation No.406 dated 3.4.1970 was sanctioned in their favour. It was pleaded that in this view of the matter the plaintiffs/respondents have no ground to challenge the mutation or the action of the appellants. The receipt of the notice was admitted but the claim was denied. The parties went to trial on the following issues :- 1. Whether the plaintiffs are liable to be directed to the defendants to pay the compensation along with interest @ 24% per annum towards the road of Miran to Hisar, as alleged?OPD 2. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit?OPD 3. Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the present suit?OPD 4. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present R.S.A. No.729 of 2009 (O&M) -3- form?OPD 5. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped by their own act and conduct from filing the present suit?OPD 6. Whether the plaintiffs have suppressed the true and material facts from the Court?OPD 7. Relief. The learned trial Court as also the first Appellate Court concluded that there was no material to show as to how the appellants had entered possession of the disputed land and, therefore, decreed the suit of the plaintiffs/respondents. Aggrieved by the aforesaid finding, the State of Haryana is in regular second appeal. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that they had paid the compensation qua the adjoining land which they had acquired and from this it should be inferred that they had acquired the disputed land also validly. It was further pleaded that the possession was open to the knowledge of the respondents and therefore they have become owners by way of adverse possession and consequently the respondents were precluded from raising any challenge to the mutation or their possession. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and have perused the impugned judgments. Mutation, Ex.P-8 shows that on 29.9.1970 in a general meeting Amar Singh Sarpanch came present and at that point of time also the road was found to be in running condition and was possessed by PWD B&R Department. Accordingly, the mutation was entered. R.S.A. No.729 of 2009 (O&M) -4- The appellants have pleaded a sale by the erstwhile owners in their favour. No such evidence was produced by them from which it could be inferred that a sale had been concluded in their favour. The sale deed has not seen the light of the day so far. There is no other material to show that Sarpanch or anybody else from the village had consented on behalf of the land owners to part with this land. There is also no evidence to suggest that even if such a consent had been there, the owners had consented to such a transfer. The plea of the appellants that they had paid compensation to the adjoining land owners and from this it should be inferred that they had acquired the disputed land also, is seemingly misplaced. Acquisition of the land as a matter of fact could have been easily established by the appellants had they ever undertaken such an exercise. It is also the settled principle of law that the appellants which is a benevolent State, is cast with an onerous duty to ensure that the right of the citizen is not violated in any form. There being no material to suggest that the State had entered the possession of the disputed property validly on the strength of a legally undertaken exercise, the findings recorded by the Courts below cannot be termed to be perverse so as to warrant an interference in the regular second appeal. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. 23.3.2009 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss