1 Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:21285 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA RFA No. 413 of 2014 Reserved on: 20.05.2026 Date of decision:03.06.2026 Date of uploading on website: 03.06.2026 ________________________________________________ State of H.P. & others …..Appellants. Versus Krishan Lal ……Respondent. ________________________________________________ Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge. 1 Whether approved for reporting? For the appellants: Mr. Raj Negi, Additional Advocate General. For the respondent: Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate, vice Mr. D.P. Chauhan, Advocate. Sushil Kukreja, Judge. The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellants/State, who were defendants before the learned Court below (hereinafter referred to as “the defendants”) under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short “CPC”) against judgment and decree, dated 31.08.2012, passed by learned District Judge Shimla, in Civil Appeal No. 22-S/1 of 2009, whereby the suit of the plaintiff-Shri Krishan Lal (respondent herein) was partly decreed and decree for 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:21285 ) permanent prohibitory injunction and damages in the sum of Rs.2,978,770/- was passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants (appellants herein) for recovery of Rs.14,05000/- on account of damages and also for grant of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from entering into his land or passing heavy machinery for construction of Pujarli Ravine Link Road. As per the plaintiff he was owner-in-possession of the land comprised in khata khatauni No. 15/16, khasra No. 115 classified as grassland, measuring 0-53-99 hectares, khasra No. 108, classified as orchard, total kite 2, measuring 0-01- 39 hectares, as per jamabandi for the year 2004, situated in Mauja Satran, District Shimla, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as “the suit land”). The plaintiff further averred that in the year 2004, the defendants approached the plaintiff, through their field agencies at Jubbal, for giving a small portion of land for construction of Pujarli Ravine Link Road leading to Chuila Karaltu. The plaintiff with a hope to have road facility to his orchard and residential house, agreed and executed affidavit, dated 11.03.2004, and offered his land for 3 Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:21285 ) construction of the aforesaid road. Thereafter, the agencies of the defendants visited the site and plaintiff was asked to visit Jubbal office where he was shown trace and alignment of the proposed road. 2(a). The plaintiff averred that cutting of hill side land, abutting the apple orchard of the plaintiff, was carried out by the defendants in such a manner that the plaintiff suffered huge loss, as the orchard of the plaintiff got damaged while constructing the aforesaid road. The defendants also caused danger to double storey residential house of the plaintiff, where he used to reside alongwith his family members. 2(b). The plaintiff approached the defendants for providing remedial measures to avoid further damage and the horticulture expert, on assessment, submitted his report wherein it was mentioned that the plaintiff had sustained damage of 50 trees. As per the plaintiff, demolished portion of the land of the plaintiff required immediate reconstruction and restoration, so as to protect remaining portion of the property and for that plaintiff required an amount of Rs.11,91,824/-, which was assessed by a qualified engineer. The plaintiff requested the defendants to accept his demands and he also issued legal notice to the defendants. On the 4 Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:21285 ) basis of these averments the plaintiff had filed the present suit. 3. The defendants contested the suit by filing a written statement, wherein they raised preliminary objections of maintainability, cause of action, estoppel, non-joinder of necessary parties, non compliance of Section 80 CPC and pleaded that the plaintiff had voluntarily given affidavit for construction of the road. As per the defendants, they constructed Pujarli Ravine Link Road on persistent demands of the public and the plaintiff had executed affidavit before Executive Magistrate, Kotkhai on 11.03.2004 and he had given his consent for construction of the road over his land as per survey conducted by the Department. The defendants took precautionary measures to safeguard the land of the plaintiff from debris, but the plaintiff, after getting the benefit of connectivity of the road, filed the suit by concealing true facts to acquire financial benefits from the defendants. The defendants also averred that Pujarli Ravine Link Road was constructed after obtaining no objection certificate from the owners and the plaintiff. 4. The plaintiff filed replication to the written statement filed by the defendants, wherein he reiterated the 5 Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:21285 ) averments made in the plaint and he denied the claim of the defendants. 5. On 01.04.2010 the learned Trial Court framed the following issues for determination and adjudication: “1. Whether plaintiff is entitled for grant of decree for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from causing any type of interference in land comprised in Khasra No. 115 and Khasra No. 108 Kite 2 measuring 0-01-39 hectares situated at Mauja Satran District Shimla H.P. as claimed? OPP 2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to grant of damages in sum of Rs.1405000/- on account of loss suffered by plaintiff due to acts of defendants as claimed for? OPP 3. Whether suit is not maintainable as alleged? OPD 4. Whether plaintiff is stopped from filing present suit as alleged? OPD 5. Whether suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as alleged? OPD 6. Whether suit is bad for want of compliance of mandatory provision under Section 80 of Code of Civil Procedure as alleged? OPD 7. Relief.” 6. The learned Trial Court, after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and after appreciating the material on record, allowed the suit of the plaintiff and awarded him damages to the tune of Rs.2,97,700/- against the 6 Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:21285 ) defendants. Hence, the instant appeal maintained by the appellants-State (defendants). 7. At the very outset, it may be pertinent to mention here that during the course of arguments, the learned Additional Advocate General stated that the appellants/defendants will press the appeal only on the ground that damages for apple trees had wrongly been awarded by the learned Trial Court. He contended that the learned Trial Court had erred in awarding damages qua 50 apple trees on the basis of report, Ex. PW-2/A, and had over- looked the contradictory evidence of the plaintiff. 8. Conversely, the learned vice counsel for the respondent (plaintiff) supported the impugned judgment of the learned Trial Court. He contended that the impugned judgment and decree is the result of proper appreciation of both facts and law and the same does not need any interference of this Court. 9. I have heard the learned Additional Advocate General for the appellant/State, learned vice counsel for the respondent and carefully examined the entire record. 10. It is the admitted case of the parties that the defendants have constructed Pujarli Ravine Link Road on 7 Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:21285 ) the land owned by the plaintiff and in this respect the plaintiff had executed affidavit before the Executive Mgistrate, Kotkhai, on 11.03.2004, by giving consent for the construction of the aforementioned road. The case of the plaintiff is that his orchard was damaged by the defendants while constructing road and the damage was got assessed through Horticulture Expert. 11. Plaintiff-Shri Krishan Lal, appeared in the witness-box as PW-5 and he also tendered in evidence his affidavit, wherein he reiterated almost all the averments made in his plaint. The plaintiff specifically deposed that he reported damage of orchard to Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, Kalbog and thereafter Pradhan visited the spot and issued certificate on 17.08.2007. The damage was got assessed through Horticulture Expert, Shri B.S. Bajwa, who retired as Deputy Director Horticulture, Himachal Pradesh. Shri B.S. Bajwa visited his property on 12.07.2008 and assessed damage of orchard to the tune of Rs.2,97,700/-. 12. The plaintiff, in support of his case, examined Shri B.S. Bajwa, the then Deputy Director, Horticulture, who appeared in the witness-box as PW-2 and deposed that he served the Horticulture Department for 35 years. He further 8 Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:21285 ) deposed that on 02.07.2008, at the instance of the plaintiff, he visited the spot and plaintiff showed Khasras No.108/1 and 114/1, in presence of one Prem Chand, and he made evaluation of the fruit bearing plants. He also deposed that his report is Ex. PW-2/A, and he had filed his affidavit in examination-in-chief, wherein it has been stated that he visited the site at Pujarli on 12.07.2008. The orchard was located at the height of 6000 feet and damaged trees were found in Khasras No. 114/1 and 108/1. It has also been mentioned in the affidavit that he had evaluated the value of damaged trees according to the formula approved by State of H.P. Department of Horticulture. As per his opinion, 50 apple trees of approximately 07 years of age were damaged, i.e., 30 apple trees were uprooted and 20 apple trees were buried under debris. There was recital in his affidavit that 50 apple trees were damaged due to construction of Pujarli Ravine Link Road and the damage was assessed to the tune of Rs.2,97,700/-. 13. Thus, as per the statement of Horticulture expert (PW-2) he had personally visited the spot and found that 50 apple trees were got damaged while construction of the road. As per his statement, 30 trees of seven years of age were 9 Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:21285 ) uprooted and 20 apple trees were buried under debris. PW- 2 had submitted his report, Ex. PW-2/A. However, no evidence has been led by the defendants contrary to the report submitted by the plaintiff from Horticulture Expert and the same remained un-rebutted. The appellant-State has failed to show any reason as to why report, Ex. PW-2/A, should be discarded. Therefore, in view of the un-rebutted evidence of the plaintiff on record, the learned Trial Court did not commit any error in awarding damages to the tune of Rs.2,97,700/- in favour of the plaintiff qua damages for 50 apple trees. 14. No other point was urged. 15. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, no interference in the impugned judgment is called for. The instant appeal, which sans merits, deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand(s) disposed of. ( Sushil Kukreja ) Judge 3rd June, 2026 (virender)