Beharod, Distt. Alwar Raj v. Murari Lal S/o Ram Chandra, Naghodi, Teh. Beharod

1/8. Prem Lata D/o Late Shri Gajanand, Village Naghodi, Teh. Beharod, Distt. Alwar Raj. 1/9. Indramani D/o Late Shri Gajanand , Village Naghodi, Teh. Beharod, Distt. Alwar Raj. ---Plaintiffs-Appellants Versus 1 Murari Lal S/o Ram Chandra, Naghodi, Teh. Beharod, Distt. Alwar Raj. Deceased Through Legal Representatives- 1/1. Santra Devi W/o Shri Murari Lal, Naghodi, Teh. Beharod, Distt. Alwar Raj. 1/2. Virendra Kumar S/o Murari Lal, Naghodi, Teh. Beharod, Distt. Alwar Raj. 1/3. Subhash S/o Shri Murari Lal Yadav, Naghodi, Teh. Beharod, Distt. Alwar Raj. 1/4. Ahilya D/o Shri Murari Lal Yadav, Naghodi, Teh. Beharod, Distt. Alwar Raj. 1/5. Kamla D/o Murari Lal Yadav, Naghodi, Teh. Beharod, [2025:RJ-JP:26070] (2 of 5) [CSA-70/2016] Distt. Alwar Raj. ---Defendants-Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Lokesh Tiwari, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Poonia, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA 14/07/2025 Judgment The present second appeal has been filed by the appellants- plaintiffs (for short ‘the plaintiffs’) against the judgment and decree dated 28.10.2015 passed by the Additional District Judge No.2, Behror, Alwar (for short ‘the appellate court’) in Civil Appeal No.69/2009(25/2003), whereby the appellate court while dismissing the appeal filed by the plaintiffs, affirmed the judgment and decree dated 29.05.2003 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Behror, District Alwar (for short ‘the trial court’) in Civil Suit No.62/1998 by which the trial court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs for possession. Brief facts of the case are that the original plaintiff filed a suit for eviction against the original defendant mentioning therein that on 24.11.1974, plot No.53 ad-measuring 30 X 45 ft. situated in village Naghodi, Tehsil Behror was allotted to the original plaintiff by the Gram Panchayat Silarpur but on account of dampness of cow dung and flowing off hut in rainy season, the plaintiff obtained permission for raising Pakka construction from the Gram Panchayat, Silarpur and got constructed a strong wall in the half portion of the southern side but due to financial restrains, he could not raise the construction. It was also submitted that on [2025:RJ-JP:26070] (3 of 5) [CSA-70/2016]

31.12.1997, the original defendant encroached on the original plaintiff’s land unlawfully for which a decree for eviction was sought. The defendant filed the written statement and denied the averments made in the plaint and stated that he had possession on the disputed land long back. The original plaintiff wrongly got allotted the said land in his favour by misusing his power because he was the Vice-Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. So, the suit filed by the original plaintiff be dismissed. On the pleading of the parties, the trial court framed the following issues:- 01- vk;k oknh okn ds iSjk uacj 1 esa of.kZr tk;knkn oknh dh fefY;r dCts dh Hkwfe gS\ 02- vk;k izfroknh us fnukad 30-12-97 dks tcju mijksDr Hkw[k.M ij dCtk dj fy;k gS\ 03- vk;k oknh izfroknh tks csn[ky djok dj n[ky izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ 04- vk;k oknh nkok ykus dks ,LVksIM gS\ 05- vk;k tk;nkn eqruktk ij izfronh fcLlsnkjh mUewyu ls iwoZ ls gh dkfct gS\ 06- vk;k fookfnr txg pkjkxkg gS rFkk iapk;r dks oknh dks iV~Vk nsus dk vf/kdkjh ugha Fkk\ 07- vuqrks"k\ To prove his case, the original plaintiff got himself examined as PW-1-Gajanand, PW-2-Pankaj Sharma and PW-3 Shyam Sunder. To defend his case, the original defendant got examined DW-1 Murari Lal, DW-2 Harphool, DW-3 Ramkishore and DW-4 Lalaram. [2025:RJ-JP:26070] (4 of 5) [CSA-70/2016] The trial court after hearing both the parties, dismissed the suit filed by the original plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated

29.05.2003 held that the disputed land is a pasture land and the Gram Panchayat had no power to allot it to anyone. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree dated 29.05.2003, the plaintiffs filed an appeal before the appellate court. The appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 28.10.2015 dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiffs. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that the appellate court as well as the trial court committed an error in dismissing the appeal as well as suit filed by the plaintiffs because the disputed land was allotted to the original plaintiff by Gram Panchayat and he constructed a temporary structure after obtaining permission from the Gram Panchayat. The original defendant had no right to interfere in it. The original plaintiff had not misused his power. So, the appeal be admitted on the substantial questions of law, as formulated in the memo of appeal. Learned counsel for the defendants has opposed the arguments advanced by learned 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 is a pasture land which can not be allotted to anyone. So, the appeal filed by the plaintiffs being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the plaintiffs as well as learned counsel for the defendants. [2025:RJ-JP:26070] (5 of 5) [CSA-70/2016] It is an admitted position that the disputed land is a pasture land which can not be allotted to anyone. 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 substantial question of law is made out for admitting the present appeal. So, the present appeal filed by the plaintiffs being bereft of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. Gourav/77 (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J