Prakash Chand Dhalwal, Bhoponka Bada, Police Line, Ajmer v. Ajmer

: Mr. M. M. Ranjan, Senior Adv. assisted by Mr. Lokesh Tiwari, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Brij Kishore Sharma, Adv. Mr. Manoj Kumar, Adv. Ms. Pooja Dixit, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA 23/07/2025 Judgment This civil second appeal has been filed by the appellants- plaintiffs (for short ‘the plaintiffs’) against the judgment and decree dated 14.10.2009 passed by Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.4, Ajmer (for short ‘the appellate court’) in civil appeal No.231/2009(123/2004) whereby the appellate court while dismissing the appeal filed by the plaintiffs, affirmed the judgment and decree dated 11.03.2004 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate No.4, Ajmer (for short [2025:RJ-JP:27488] (2 of 5) [CSA-96/2010] ‘the trial court’) in Civil Suit No.248/2002(83/96), by which the trial court dismissed the plaintiff’s suit for permanent injunction. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs filed a civil suit for permanent injunction against the respondents-defendants (for short ‘the defendants’) mentioning therein that the disputed land of Khasra No.155 ad-measuring 1 bigha 3 biswa is situated in Thok Teliyan, Nosar Rati Dang, Tehsil Halka and District Ajmer which was received by the plaintiffs through a Will dated

26.10.1993 executed by Smt. Ethal Unis. She expired on

26.12.1993. Smt. Ethal Unis had purchased the said land from Mahadev through a registered sale deed dated 21.01.83. The plaintiffs had raised four boundary walls around the disputed land and rooms were also constructed thereon. On 01.05.1971, the Urban Improvement Trust, Ajmer carved out a scheme named “Anasagar Circular Road Scheme” and a gazette notification in this regard was published on 09.12.1971. Khasra No.155 was not mentioned in the notification nor the land was ever acquired. The employees of the defendant No.2 came at the spot and informed the plaintiffs that the disputed land was allotted to them by defendant No.1 through a possession letter dated 23.04.1990 for constructing “Teekam Chand School”. The defendants want to demolish the rooms of the plaintiffs. So, the suit filed by the plaintiffs may be decreed. Defendant No.3 filed the written statement and denied the averments made in the plaint and stated that disputed land of Khasra No.155 ad-measuring 1 bigha 3 biswa is included in the scheme of “Anasagar Circular Road, Scheme”. The said land was acquired and a gazette notification was issued on 09.12.1971 [2025:RJ-JP:27488] (3 of 5) [CSA-96/2010] under Section 52(1) of the UIT Act and in the year 1980 the possession was handed over to defendant No.3. Since then the land is in their possession. The acquisition proceedings have been completed and the compensation has also been paid to original Khatedar(s). The civil court has no jurisdiction to decide the matter. So, the suit be dismissed. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed the following issues:- 1- vk;k oknh izfroknhx.k ds tfj;s LFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk ikcUn djokus dk vf/kdkjh gS fd os tk;nkn Fkksd rsfy;ku la- 155 fLFkr ukslj jkrh Mkax rglhy o ftyk vtesj ij ekStwn pkjnhokjh o dksBfj;ksa dks /oLr ugha djsa u mDr lEifRr dks fdlh izdkj ls uqdlku igaqpkus u gh oknhx.k dks tcju csn[ky djsa \ 2- vk;k oknh ds fodzsrk ds vU; fodzsrk }kjk 21-10-83 dks tkjh fodz; i= fof/k vuqlkj 'kwU; gS \ 3- vuqrks"k A To prove their case, the plaintiffs got examined PW-1 Ashok Dhalwal. To prove their case, the defendants got examined DW-1 Todarmal. After hearing both the parties, the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 11.03.2004 dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree dated

11.03.2004, the plaintiffs filed an appeal before the appellate court. The appellate court vide judgment and decree dated

14.10.2009 dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiffs and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 11.03.2004 passed by the trial court. [2025:RJ-JP:27488] (4 of 5) [CSA-96/2010] Learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that the trial court as well as the appellate court have committed an error in dismissing the suit as well as appeal filed by the plaintiffs. Learned senior counsel for the plaintiffs further submits that the defendants had neither produced any document which shows that the disputed land was ever acquired. Neither the copy of the award nor any proof with regard to payment of compensation to Peeru @ Heera was submitted before the courts below. Learned senior counsel for the plaintiffs further submits that it was a suit for permanent injunction. So, detailed enquiry with regard to title was not permissible. Peeru @ Heera had sold the disputed land to Mahadev through a registered sale deed dated 22.08.1967. Learned senior counsel for the plaintiffs also submits that the trial court as well as the appellate court have committed a serious error in not appreciating the documents (exhibit-5 and exhibit-6) which are certificates issued by UIT and Municipal Council, Ajmer which clearly show that Khasra No.155 was never acquired nor it is a part of any scheme. So, the judgment and decree passed by both the courts below be set-aside and the present second appeal be admitted on the substantial questions of law, as framed in the memo of appeal. Learned counsel for the defendants has opposed the arguments advanced by learned senior counsel for the plaintiffs and submitted that the trial court as well as the appellate court rightly dismissed the suit as well as the appeal filed by the plaintiffs because the disputed land was acquired. So, acquisition proceedings can not be challenged by way of the suit. The civil [2025:RJ-JP:27488] (5 of 5) [CSA-96/2010] court has no jurisdiction to try the suit. So, the present appeal being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. I have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgments. It is an admitted position that the disputed land was acquired and the defendants had proved the acquisition proceedings. So, in my considered opinion, the trial court as well as the appellate court have not committed any error in dismissing the suit as well as the appeal filed by the plaintiffs. So, no ground is made out to admit the appeal on the substantial questions of law, as framed in the memo of appeal. Therefore, the present appeal being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s), dismissed. Gourav/72 (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J