BIASAN DEVI Vs. STATE OF H.P.
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
STATE OF H.P.
Click here to view full judgement.
JYOTSNA REWAL DUA, J. -
(1.) An application under Order 21 Rule 32 of Code of Civil Procedure moved by the petitioner has been dismissed by the learned Senior Sub Judge, Hamirpur vide order dated 3.10.2017. Aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred instant revision petition.
(2.) Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General for respondents No. 1 and 2 and gone through the appended record.
2(i) A civil suit filed by the petitioner in respect of land comprised in khata No. 148, Khatoni No. 202, Khasra No. 689 area 7K-4M, Khasra No. 711 area 2K-77M situated in Tika Manoh Uparla, Tappa Mehlta, Tehsil Bhoranj, District Hamirpur, H.P. was referred to Lok Adalat, where petitioner and respondent No.3 compromised the matter and following award was passed on 28.12.2013:-
"This dispute between the parties having been referred for determination to the Lok Adalat and the parties having compromised/settled the case/matter and the following award is passed in terms of the settlement:- The Project Manager of defendant No.3 has made statement that he will remove the waste material from land of plaintiff within one month and a drainage will be constructed by him and PWD. The statement of defendant No.3 has been heard and understood by the plaintiff and she also undertaken not create any hurdle during construction of drainage. In view the statement of the parties suit of the plaintiff is compromised in the lok adalat."
2(ii) The petitioner moved an application under 21 Rule 32 C.P.C against the respondents for breach of the above award.
The respondents denied the alleged breach and submitted that the compromise effected under the award has been duly adhered to.
2(iii) The learned court below appointed a Local Commissioner to inspect the suit land vis-a-vis compliance of the award, who submitted his report EX.AW1/L. Another inspection report Ex. RW1/B was submitted by the Assistant Engineer, State Road Project, CMU Hamirpur, H.P. who had visited the spot on 11.8.2014 in support of compliance of the award. After going through the pleadings, inspection reports and the evidence adduced by the parties, learned court below there had been no breach of the award as alleged by the petitioner and accordingly dismissed the petition.
concluded that Liberty was reserved to the petitioner to approach the court in case of disobedience of the award/decree in question. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant revision petition.
3(i) Under the award, passed by Lok Adalat, respondent No.3 and the petitioner had compromised the matter involved in the civil suit filed by the petitioner, whereby the Project Manager of respondent No.3 had made a statement that; (i) he will remove the waste material from the land of the plaintiff; (ii) a drainage will be constructed by him and PWD.
3(ii) Impugned order records that Sh. Arvind Lakhanpal, while appearing as RW-1 stated that 38 meter long retaining wall had been constructed alongside the suit land at the spot after removing the debris over it and 'V' shape drainage alongwith 900 m.m. Dia-meter pipes and culvert had also been laid at the spot. He further deposed that neither any debris nor any water was flowing towards the suit land.
3(iii) Impugned order also records that the petitioner while appearing in the witness box as AW2 had herself admitted that a retaining wall alongwith a culvert had been constructed at the spot after the compromise and further that these were raised as per her direction. The petitioner has also admitted that a parapet had also been constructed towards the suit land.
3(iv) The construction of retaining wall by respondent No.3 at the spot has also been admitted by the Local Commissioner (AW1). Though, the Local Commissioner (AW1) has stated that mud and small stones were scattered on the suit land rendering the same uncultivable, but the fact remains that he has also admitted that he did not get the suit land demarcated or identified by any revenue expert. He stated that he conducted the inspection on the basis of identification of land by the petitioner. In fact, Local Commissioner, while appearing in the witness box admitted having not even seen the award passed by Lok Adalat and the fact that he himself had not seen any debris falling on the spot. AW1 has also admitted the construction of water channel, culvert and retaining wall on the spot by the respondents.
4. In view of the evidence led by the parties, the learned court below was justified to hold that the evidence was insufficient to prove the alleged disobedience /breach of the award. Impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity.
Accordingly, I find no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any. ;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.