Himachal Pradesh High Court
State Of H.P vs Rattan Singh And Ors on 15 November, 2019
Author: Tarlok Singh Chauhan
Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
R.S.A. No. 163/2019
.
Decided on: 15.11.2019
State of H.P. ...Appellant
Versus
Rattan Singh and ors. ....Respondents
Coram r to
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting ?1 No
For the appellant: Mr. Vinod Thakur, Addl. A.G. with Mr.
Mr.Ram Lal Thakur, Asstt. A.G.
For the respondents: Mr. Vijay Singh Bhatia, Advocate, for
respondents No. 1, 3 and 4.
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (oral)
Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by both the learned courts below, the State has filed the instant appeal.
2 The plaintiffs/respondents filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction and also sought damages to the tune of Rs.1,53,000/ from the defendantState. It was 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ?Yes ::: Downloaded on - 19/11/2019 20:23:17 :::HCHP 2 averred that the plaintiffs and proforma defendant No.6 were the coowners in possession of the land comprised in Khasra .
No.32, Khata/Khatauni No. 85/90, measuring 41 bighas, whereas plaintiff No.2 was the exclusive owner in possession of the land comprised in Khasra No. 259/45, Khata/Khatauni No. 69/74, measuring 76 bighas. It was averred that the Gurudwara, which had been constructed by land to the forefathers of the plaintiffs, was situated over the suit and in possession of the plaintiffs and proforma defendant No.6 and around the Gurudwara, there was a boundary wall of 15 feet height and stair case to the Gurdwara, which had been illegally demolished by the defendantState by use of excavating machines.
3 The suit was resisted and contested by the defendantState by filing written statement, wherein apart from taking various preliminary objections, it was averred that adjoining to the suit land, there existed 'Sarak Gair Mumkin Rasta" (public path), which was owned and possessed by the State. It was averred that under "Sampurna Grameen Rojgar Yojna" on the recommendations of S.D.C, Member, Auhar, a sum of Rs.40,000/ was sanctioned for construction of a link road from 'Raipaid to Village Ropa. The ::: Downloaded on - 19/11/2019 20:23:17 :::HCHP 3 aforesaid road was to be constructed over Khasra No. 30 by the Gram Panchayat, however the Gram Panchayat conveyed .
its incapacity to construct the aforesaid road and gave no objection certificate for the work to be carried out by Yuvak Mandal, Auhar, who, in turn, demolished part of the wall as also path without consent of the concerned authority, which led to cancellation of the agreement w.e.f. 4.8.2003.
4Learned trial court after framing the issues and recording the evidence of the parties, vide judgment and decree dated 31.12.2016 partly decreed the suit of the plaintiffs to the extent that the plaintiffs were held entitled to the relief of mandatory injunction and defendants No. 1 to 3 were directed to reconstruct the damaged retaining wall/boundary wall, foot path and entrance gate etc. of Gurudwara in question. The plaintiffs were further held entitled for damages to the tune of Rs.50,000/ and lastly, defendants No. 1 to 3 were restrained from causing any kind of interference over the land in dispute.
5 Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, dated 31.12.2016, the appellantState filed an appeal before the learned first appellate court, which came to be dismissed vide ::: Downloaded on - 19/11/2019 20:23:17 :::HCHP 4 judgment and decree dated 20.1.2018, constraining the appellantState to file the instant appeal.
.
6 I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case carefully.
7 It is not in dispute that during the pendency of the suit before the learned trial court some of the land and the structure in dispute stood acquired by the National Highway Authority of India and possession thereof also stood duly delivered to it. It is also not in dispute that not only the respondents were paid compensation for the land, but also the structure standing thereupon.
8 Once that be so, obviously then the respondents/plaintiffs cannot claim compensation from two sources for the same property as that would amount to undue and unjust enrichment, which simply means retention of a benefit by a person that is unjust or inequitable. `Unjust enrichment' occurs when a person retains money or benefits which in justice, equity and good conscience, belong to someone else.
9 The doctrine of `unjust enrichment', therefore, is that no person can be allowed to enrich inequitably at the expense of another. A right of recovery under the doctrine of ::: Downloaded on - 19/11/2019 20:23:17 :::HCHP 5 `unjust enrichment' arises where retention of a benefit is considered contrary to justice or against equity.
.
10 The juristic basis of the obligation is not founded upon any contract or tort but upon a third category of law, namely, quasicontract or the doctrine of restitution.
11 In the leading case of Fibrosa v. Fairbairn, [1942] 2 All ER 122, Lord Wright stated the principle thus :
"....(A)ny civilized system of law is bound to provide remedies for cases of what has been called unjust enrichment or unjust benefit, that is, to prevent a man from retaining the money of, or some benefit derived from another which it is against conscience that he should keep. Such remedies in English law are generically different from remedies in contract or in tort, and are now recognized to fall within a third category of the common law which has been called quasicontract or restitution."
Lord Denning also stated in Nelson v. Larholt, [1947] 2 All ER 751;
"It is no longer appropriate, however, to draw a distinction between law and equity. Principles have now to be stated in the light of their combined effect. Nor is it necessary to convass the niceties of the old forms of action. Remedies now depend on the substance of the right, not on whether they can be fitted into a particular framework. The right here is not peculiar to equity or ::: Downloaded on - 19/11/2019 20:23:17 :::HCHP 6 contract or tort, but falls naturally within the important category of cases where the court orders restitution if the justice of the case so requires."
.
The above principle has been accepted in India.
12 However, it would be noticed that the entire land and the structure have not been acquired, therefore, the appellant has no right to interfere in remaining land and structure belonging to the respondents and consequently, the judgments and decrees passed to this effect by the learned courts below need to be upheld. Ordered accordingly.
13 As regards relief of damages, since the respondents/plaintiffs have already received compensation amount for part of the structure and land from the National Highway Authority of India, the same is rejected and findings to the contrary rendered by both the learned courts below are set aside.
14 The appeal is disposed of, in the aforesaid terms.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. The parties are left to bear their own costs.
15.11.2019 (Tarlok Singh Chauhan)
(pankaj) Judge
::: Downloaded on - 19/11/2019 20:23:17 :::HCHP