Sri Ajit J. Gunjal, learned Government Pleader appearing for the appellant submits that as the plaintiff was fully aware of the fact that the land in question was being used for laying the road and as he did not raise any objection, he must be deemed to have consented to laying the road on the suit land, therefore, he was estopped from seeking a relief of permanent injunction at the belated stage.
{Para 5}
6. The appeal has been admitted on the following substantial question of law;
"Whether on facts and circumstances of the case the plaintiff is not estopped from challenging the laying of the road by the defendant in his land and whether he is entitled to the injunction at this belated stage."
8. The State which takes law into its own hand, and acts in wilful disobedience to law and usurps the property of a citizen, cannot be permitted to contend that the citizen having not raised any objection is not entitled to seek an order of mandatory injunction or a permanent injunction. If the State is allowed to do such act, it would amount to putting a premium on the illegal act of the State. The action of the State may have a laudable object but it has to be accomplished in accordance with law. The STATE is not above law. It is as much bound by Rule of Law as any citizen or person. The actions of the State when they affect the life, liberty and property of a person or a citizen must be dictated by accepted notions of fair-play justice and the laws governing them. Therefore, I am of the view that it is not possible to hold that the plaintiff is estopped from seeking a decree for permanent injunction and also a decree for mandatory injunction as it is not proved that the plaintiff consented to or waived his right by allowing the State to lay the road on the suit land.
Print Page
No comments:
Post a Comment