Distt. Karauli Raj v. Shivram S/o Jhandey Ram, Road Khurd, Teh. And Distt

Kailash Singh S/o Late Shri Umrao, Road Khurd, Teh. And Distt. Karauli Raj.

5. Smt. Rumali W/o Late Shri Umrao, Road Khurd, Teh. And Distt. Karauli Raj. ----Appellants Versus

1. Shivram S/o Jhandey Ram, Road Khurd, Teh. And Distt. Karauli Raj.

2. Bhambhoo S/o Devphool, Road Khurd, Teh. And Distt. Karauli Raj.

4. Tehsildar, Karauli, Teh. Karauli, Distt. Karauli Raj. State Of Rajasthan Through Collector, Karauli Raj. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Goyal, Adv. Ms. Ritu Jindal, Adv. Ms. Anjali Sharma, Adv. Mr. Amit Singh, Adv. For Respondent(s) : None Present HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment Date of Judgment The civil second appeal has been filed by the appellants- plaintiffs (for short ‘the plaintiffs’) against the judgment and decree dated 05.03.2011 passed by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Karauli (for short ‘the first appellate Court’) in [2025:RJ-JP:30497] (2 of 5) [CSA-822/2011] regular appeal No.40/2009, whereby the first appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiffs and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 05.09.2009 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Karauli in civil suit No.45/2006(19/2003) by which the plaintiffs’ suit has been dismissed. Brief facts of the case are that the original plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction and declaration of notice dated

27.01.2003 as null and void against the respondents-defendants (for short ‘the defendants’) mentioning therein that a plot admeasuring 10X15 sq. yd. was allotted to the original plaintiff- Lakhan by Panchayat Samiti, Karauli on 17.05.1981 in khasra No. 128 for residential purposes as the land in question was recorded in the revenue record as gair mumkin abadi, in which, the plaintiffs constructed a house. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 wanted to harass the plaintiffs by using their political power. They further mentioned that at the instance of the defendant Nos. 1 and 2, the defendant No. 3 issued a notice dated 27.01.2003 and wanted to evict the plaintiffs from the above plot by mentioning the plaintiffs' construction in the public way. As per the revenue record, there is no way in the said khasra. So, notice issued by defendant No. 3 on

27.01.2003 be declared a null and void. Defendants filed the written statement and denied the averments made in the plaint and stated that plaintiffs had encroached upon the public way for which they had no right. They filed counter claim to the effect that construction raised by the plaintiffs be removed. Plaintiffs filed reply to the counter claim. [2025:RJ-JP:30497] (3 of 5) [CSA-822/2011] On the basis of pleadings of parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:- “1- vk;k izfroknh la- 3 }kjk oknh dks tkjh fd;s x;s uksfVl fnukad 27-01-03 voS/k o 'kwU; ?kksf"kr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gS \ 2- vk;k izfroknhx.k oknh dh fufeZr ikVkSj iks'k edkfu;r dks rksM dj jkLrk fudkyuk pkgrs gS\ 3- vk;k fcuk /kkjk 80 tk0nh0 dk uksfVl fn;s okn pyus ;ksX; ugha gS\ 4- vk;k oknh dks fo:) izfroknhx.k dksbZ okndkj.k u gksus ls vkns'k 7 fu;e 11 tk0nh0 ds rgr okn [kkfjt fd;s tkus ;ksX; gS\ 5- vk;k U;k;ky; dks okn Jo.k dk {ks=kf/kdkj u gksdj jktLo U;k;ky; dks okn Jo.k dk {ks=kf/kdkj gS\ 6- vk;k xzke iapk;r okn esa vko';d i{kdkj gS\ 7- vk;k oknh }kjk jkLrs dh Hkwfe esa ikVkSj dk fuekZ.k dk;Z fd;k x;k gS\ 8- vuqrks"k\” To prove his case, plaintiffs got examined PW-1- Umrao, PW- 2-Chandan Singh and PW-3-Babu and got exhibited certain documents. The defendants also got examined DW-1- Shivram and got exhibited certain documents. After hearing the parties, the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 05.09.2009, dismissed the suit as well as counter claim and restrained both the parties to construct on disputed land. Plaintiffs challenged the said judgment and decree dated

05.09.2009 passed by the trial Court by filing an appeal and the first appellate Court vide judgment dated 05.03.2011 dismissed [2025:RJ-JP:30497] (4 of 5) [CSA-822/2011] the appeal filed by the plaintiffs as well as cross-objection filed by the defendants. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that the trial Court as well as the first appellate court have committed an error in dismissing the suit as well as the appeal filed by the plaintiffs. Both the courts below have not appreciated the evidence led by the parties in the right perspective. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs further submits that the plaintiffs by way of their evidence, clearly proved that disputed land was allotted to original plaintiff-Lakhan and he had constructed a house. He also submits that there is no way in the revenue record. So, the judgments 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. None is present on behalf of the defendants. I have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for the plaintiffs and perused the impugned judgments. When the plaintiffs had encroached upon the public way, the defendant No. 3 had given a notice under Section 91 read with Section 95(7) of the Land Revenue Act in which Tehsildar, had passed order for eviction on 21.03.2023. Instead of challenging the said order before the revenue Court, the plaintiffs had filed a civil suit. So, in my considered opinion, the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court have not committed any error in dismissing the suit as well as the appeal filed by the plaintiffs. So, the appeal filed by the plaintiffs deserves to be dismissed. So, no ground is made out to admit the appeal on the substantial questions of law, as framed in the memo of appeal. [2025:RJ-JP:30497] (5 of 5) [CSA-822/2011] Therefore, the present appeal being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. Tahir/40 (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J