RAJ KUMAR MANGLA Vs. HARYANA STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Regular Second Appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree, dated August 30, 1979 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon, reversing the judgment and decree, dated August 30, 1978 passed by the Subordinate Judge First Class, Gurgaon, dismissing the suit of the plaintiff, leaving the parties to bear their own costs throughout.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that land measuring 210 Kanals fully described in Para 1 of the plaint, situated within the revenue estate of village Mohammadpur Gujar is partly Gair Mumkin Pahar and is owned by plaintiff Raj Kumar, The State of Haryana through the Director of Industries, Haryana, and Senior District Industries Officer, leased out the rights to extract stone metal etc. from the quarry situated in the suit land in favour of Sawaran Singh and Dal Chand, for the period from April 8, 1975 to March 31, 1976. Thereafter the said lessees started extracting stones etc. from the suit land through defendants 4 to 7, 10 and 11 which led Raj Kumar Plaintiff to file the suit. He pleaded that according to the Sharat Wajib-ul-Arz of the village the State has no right or interest to extract stones from the suit land except to the extent it is required for personal requirement of the State and, as such, the State and its Officers have no right to auction the right of extraction of stones etc. from the suit land. It was further pleaded that on the same ground, defendants 4 to 11 have no right to extract stones from the suit land. On these allegations, he prayed that the defendants be restrained by means of perpetual injunction from extracting stones, road metal, bajri etc. from the suit land by blasting the hillock or otherwise and committing trespass in the suit land for this purpose.

(3.) FROM the pleadings of the parties, following Issues were framed: (1) Whether the plaintiff is the owner is possession of the land in suit? OPp (2) Whether the plaintiff has no locus-standi to file the present suit? OPd (3) Whether the suit is bad on account of mis-joinder of parties and causes of action? OPd (4) Whether the suit is bad on account of non-joinder of necessary parties? OPd (5) Whether the suit is no maintainable in the present form? OPd (6) Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit on account of his acts and conduct? OPd (7) Whether the suit has become in fructuous after 31. 3. 76? OPd (8) Whether defendants 1 to 3 are not entitled to exploit mines and minerals in the suit land by way of auction? OPP (objected to) (9) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the injunction prayed for? OPp (10) Relief. After considering the evidence led by the parties, all the Issues were decided in favour of the plaintiff and his suit was decreed for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from quarrying any stone metal etc. , from the suit land.