Opposite Jal Mahal, Amer Road, Jaipur v. Jaipur Municipal Corporation, Jaipur Through Mayor, Deen

Judgment

1. Jaipur Municipal Corporation, Jaipur Through Mayor, Deen Dayal Upadhayay Bhawan, Near Sms Stadium, Lal Kothi, Tonk Road, Jaipur

2. Jaipur Development Authority Through Commissioner, Near Indra Circle, Jawaharlal Nehru Marg, Jaipur

3. Jaipur Municipal Corporation, Jaipur Through Commissioner, Hawa Mahal Zone, Jaipur ----Respondents For Appellant(s)

: Mr. Sanjay Mishra, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Nikhil Kr. Jain, Adv. Ms. Neelu Sharma, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA 14/05/2025 Order

1. This civil second appeal has been filed by the appellant- plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) against the judgment and decree dated 21.04.2017 passed by the Additional District Judge No.5, Jaipur Metropolitan (for short ‘the appellate Court’) in civil regular appeal No. 07/2015, whereby the appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 20.03.2015 passed by Additional Senior Civil Judge No. 2, Jaipur Metropolitan (for short ‘the trial Court’) in civil suit No. 39/2000 (199/2006), whereby the trial Court dismissed the plaintiff’s suit for permanent injunction. [2025:RJ-JP:20287] (2 of 5) [CSA-460/2017]

2. Brief facts of the case are that the original plaintiff-Rati Ram Choudhary had filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondents-defendants (for short ‘the defendants’) mentioning therein that plaintiff was residing and doing business on the disputed land from the year 1949. The plaintiff had continuous possession over the land and he became owner by virtue of adverse possession. Defendants wanted to dispossess him and during the pendency of the suit, they dispossessed him and subsequently suit was amended and he sought relief for restoration of possession on account of adverse possession.

3. Defendants filed their written statement and denied the averments made in the plaint and stated that plaintiff had encroached over the government land, therefore, he is not entitled to get any relief. He got the license with connivance of the defendant Nos. 1 and 2. So, suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed.

4. On the basis of pleadings of parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:- 1- vk;k oknh fookfnr lEifRr ij 1949 ls fuckZ/k :i ls dkfct gksus ds dkj.k ,MolZ its'ku ds vk/kkj ij cgSfl;r Lokeh dkfct gS\ 2- vk;k oknh] okn esa okafNr LFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk vius i{k esa izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ 3- vk;k oknh ljdkjh Hkwfe ij crkSj vfrØeh dkfct gSA vr% dkfcy csn[kyh gS\ 4- vk;k ?kks"k.kkRed vuqrks"k pkgs cxSj orZeku okn pyus ;ksX; ugha gS\ [2025:RJ-JP:20287] (3 of 5) [CSA-460/2017] 5- vk;k nkok nk;jh ls iwoZ 271 uxj ikfydk vf/kfu;e ds rgr uksfVl ugha nsus ds dkj.k nkok pyus ;ksX; ugha gS\ 6- vuqrks"k\ Lateron in compliance of order dated 12.03.2015, additional issues were framed: 6¼d½ vk;k nkSjkus nkok izfroknhx.k }kjk oknh dks fcuk fof/kd izfØ;k vikuk, oknxzLr lEifRr dks csn[ky dj fn;s tkus ls oknh dkuwuu izfroknhx.k ls iqu% dCtk izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ 6¼[k½ vk;k oknh] oknxLr lEifRr dk dCtk izkIr gksus rd crkSj gtkZ bLrsekyh izfroknhx.k ls i`Fkd&i`Fkd o la;qDr :i ls 500 :i;s izfrfnu ds fglkc ls izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS\

5. To prove his case, plaintiff got examined Prem Singh as PW- 1, Shyam Prakash Sharma as PW-2, Liladhar as PW-3, Girdhari Lal as PW-4, Ramswaroop as PW-5 and Surendra Singh as PW-6 and exhibited certain documents. The defendants also got examined DW-1-Nawal Kishore Bairwa and exhibited certain documents.

6. After hearing the parties, the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 20.03.2015, dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff.

7. Plaintiff challenged the said judgment and decree dated

20.03.2015 passed by the trial Court by way of an appeal and the appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 21.04.2017 dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff.

8. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court had committed an error in dismissing the suit and the appeal filed by the plaintiff. Both the [2025:RJ-JP:20287] (4 of 5) [CSA-460/2017] courts below had not appreciated the evidence led by the parties in the right perspective. He further submits that plaintiff has a long possession over the disputed property since 1949. Plaintiff had constructed house and shop there. Nayab Tehsildar in his report dated 25.02.1968 admitted the possession of the plaintiff. So, the findings of the appellate Court as well as trial Court be set aside and the defendants be directed to restore the possession of the plaintiff.

9. Learned counsel for the defendants has opposed the arguments advanced by counsel for the plaintiff and submitted that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court had not committed any error in dismissing the suit and the appeal filed by the plaintiff. He further submits that plaintiff was encroacher on the Government land. Disputed land vests in Jaipur Development Authority. Plaintiff had obtained forged license. On the basis of license, no ownership is proved. Plaintiff was dispossessed on

20.06.2002 and no regularization was done in his favour. So, the present appeal filed by the plaintiff is devoid of merit. No substantial question of law is made out for admitting the present appeal. So, the appeal be dismissed.

10. I have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgments.

11. It is an admitted position that plaintiff failed to adduce any cogent evidence that he was having possession over the disputed land since long. He was dispossessed by Jaipur Development Authority in the year 2002 on account of encroachment. So, in my considered opinion, the trial Court as well as the appellate Court [2025:RJ-JP:20287] (5 of 5) [CSA-460/2017] had not committed any error in dismissing the suit and the appeal filed by the plaintiff. Therefore, no substantial question of law is made out for admitting the present appeal. So, the present appeal filed by the plaintiff being bereft of any merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly.

12. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Tahir/91