IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA RSA No. 416 of 201 9 . Decided on : 1 st August, 2025. State of H.P. & Ors. ...Appellants. Versus Tek Singh ....Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellants: Mr. Gautam Sood, Deputy Advocate General. For the Respondent: Ms. Suchitra Sen, Advocate. Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral). This Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the appellant-State against the judgment and decree dated 30.07.2018 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-I, Mandi in Civil Appeal No. 45 of 2018 whereby the judgment and decree dated 31.05.2017 passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Court No.1, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. in Civil Suit No. 75-I/2003 was affirmed. 2. The suit of the respondent/plaintiff has been decreed by both the learned Courts below. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 3. The parties hereinafter shall be referred to by the same status as they held before the original Court. 4. Plaintiff filed a suit with assertion that the suit land comprised in Khata No.121, Khatauni NO. 150, Khasra No.1056, measuring 00-09-07 bighas, situated in Mohal Luhkhar, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the “suit land”) was owned by plaintiff after its purchase from original owner Puran Chand. It was alleged that after the purchase of land by the plaintiff, he came to know that the suit land had been utilized by the defendants for construction of “Sundernagar-Leda-Jhor-via-Kapahi” road. 5. Plaintiff further alleged that the utilization of suit land by the State was illegal as neither any acquisition proceedings had been conducted for the suit land nor compensation was paid. 6. Plaintiff issued notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the “Code”) before filing the suit and having failed to get the redressal of his grievance filed the suit praying for a decree of possession of the suit land or in alternative for compensation at the prevailing market rate. 7. Defendants filed their written statement and raised the objection as to the maintainability, limitation, misjoinder and non-joinder of necessary parties, estoppel etc. 3 8. On merits, the defendants raised a vague plea that whatever land was utilized for construction of road had been acquired. As per the defendants, the original owner Puran Chand had consented for construction of road through the suit land. It was also submitted that neither the original owner Puran Chand nor plaintiff had raised any objection during the construction of the road. 9. Plaintiff filed replication and thereafter denied the objections raised by the defendants and also reiterated his stand taken in the plaint. 10. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of possession, as prayed for?OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for any other alternative relief, if issue No.1 is decided in favour of the plaintiff, as prayed for? OPP 3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable as alleged?OPD 4. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by law of limitation as alleged?OPD. 5. Whether no cause of action accrued to the plaintiff as alleged?OPD 4 6. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is bad for non joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties? OPD. 7. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present suit as alleged?OPD 8. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conduct to file the present suit?OPD. 9. Relief. 11. Issues No.1 and 2 were answered in affirmative, whereas, all other issues were answered in the negative and the suit of the plaintiff was decreed by directing the defendants to take steps for acquisition of the suit land within reasonable period. 12. The defendants preferred the appeal under Section 96 of the Code before the learned District Judge, Mandi, which was assigned for disposal to the learned Additional District Judge (I), Mandi as Civil Appeal No. 45 of 2018. The appeal of defendants has been dismissed vide impugned judgment and decree, hence, this appeal. 13. The appeal was admitted on 08.04.2021 on the following substantial question of law: - “1. Whether a bare suit for possession and restoration of landed property could be decreed by 5 the trial Court in the absence of a plea seeking declaration of title of the suit property?” 14. I have heard Mr. Gautam Sood, learned Deputy Advocate General for the appellants and Ms. Suchitra Sen, learned counsel for the respondent and have also gone through the entire record carefully. 15. The learned trial Court has held that the defendants had no right to construct the road upon the suit land without acquiring the same and without paying the compensation. 16. On facts, it has been held that the plaintiff was owner of the suit land and further that the road had been constructed by the defendants without payment of any compensation either to the plaintiff or to his predecessor-in- interest. The plea raised by the defendants that the suit land was utilized with the consent of Puran Chand has also been disbelieved. However, the learned trial Court while granting the relief has held that since the road over the suit land was in public user, it would not be appropriate to pass a decree of possession and in such circumstances, the decree has been passed directing the defendants to acquire the suit land. 17. On the issue of limitation, the learned trial Court has held that the plaintiff could file the suit for possession on 6 the basis of title and there was no limitation to seek such a relief. It was also held that the defendant being the welfare State cannot be allowed to deprive a citizen of the country of his property without adoption of due process of law. It has further been held that the long possession of the defendants over the suit land would not be sufficient to dis-entitle the plaintiff from filing the suit as the State could not even plead acquisition of title by adverse possession. 18. Learned First Appellate Court on reappreciation of evidence has affirmed the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. 19. This Court while deciding Regular Second Appeal will not interfere with the concurrent findings of fact unless those are shown to be perverse to the records. 20. I have gone through the oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record by the parties. 21. Since, the title of the plaintiff had not been disputed by the defendants, the onus was on the defendants to prove that they had utilized the suit land by adhering to the basic tenets of law. 22. Indisputably, the defendants have not been able to establish that the suit land was either acquired or compensation was paid to the owner. 7 23. The defendants have also failed to prove the plea of consent having been rendered by Puran Chand. No document has been placed or proved on record to establish such fact. Even though oral evidence could not have been sufficient for such purpose, yet none of the witnesses examined by the defendants had stated so, while deposing before the learned trial Court. 23. Thus, I find the findings returned by both the learned Courts to be in tune with the material available on record and hence, no illegality much less perversity can be attributed to such findings. 24. The defendants had not specifically denied the title of the plaintiff qua the suit land. Even otherwise, the plaintiff had established such fact by cogent evidence. Jamabandi Ex.PW1/B clearly reflected the ownership of the suit land in the name of Puran Chand. Simultaneously, in the remarks column of the said Jamabandi, reflection of mutation of sale in respect of the suit land by Puran Chand in favour of plaintiff can be found. 25. The issuance of notice under Section 80 of the Code by the plaintiff before filing the suit and its receipt by the defendants has also been proved on record. Copy of 8 notice has been exhibited as Ex.PW1/C. Receipt and acknowledgments have also been proved on record. 26. In light of what has been held above, the substantial question of law as framed on 08.04.2021 is answered as under: Since, firstly the defendants had not challenged the title of the plaintiff and secondly, because the title of the plaintiff and his predecessor-in-interest was otherwise recorded in the records of rights, there was no bar for the plaintiff to file the suit for possession and restoration of the land without seeking the declaration of title. 27. In result, I find no merit in the instant appeal and the same is dismissed. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and decree is affirmed. Pending applications also stand disposed of. 28. No order as to the costs. 29. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. 30. Records be sent back. (Satyen Vaidya) Judge 1st August, 2025. (jai)