- (1.) The grievance of the plaintiff-appellant is that despite the appellant demonstrating that the respondent nos.1 to 5 were purporting to make a construction covering the entire vacant joint property though such respondents notionally had a right to 0.12 decimal out of 2.32 decimal of the joint land left after the acquisition of 0.43 decimal thereof by the State, no injunction was issued.
(2.) The appellant is aggrieved that the construction work commenced has not been restrained by the trial court and even an order restraining the creation of third party interest in the construction area has been declined.
(3.) It is the undisputed position that one Shibu Das Bairagya held 2.75 decimal of land which, on his death, devolved upon his widow, two daughters and two sons. All the heirs of Shibu Das Bairagya, except son Mrityunjoy, apparently sold their interest in the land to the appellant herein. It is also the appellant's case that upon the State acquiring 0.43 decimal of the joint land, it was Mrityunjoy or his heirs, the respondent nos.1 to 5 herein, who obtained the compensation. According to the appellant, Mrityunjoy's share in the undivided land would have been 0.55 decimal. Upon accepting compensation for the State's acquisition of 0.43 decimal, the balance share of Mrityunjoy's heirs is 0.12 decimal, equivalent to about 55 sq ft.;