Village Behnera, Tehsil And District Bharatpur Rajasthan v. Village Behnera, Tehsil And District Bharatpur Rajasthan

Smt. Dropati W/o Murarilal, Aged About 69 Years, R/o Village Behnera, Tehsil And District Bharatpur Rajasthan.

5. Girish S/o Shyam Prakash, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Village Behnera, Tehsil And District Bharatpur Rajasthan. ----Appellants/Plaintiffs Versus

1. Ramesh Chand S/o Ramchand, Aged About 74 Years, R/o Village Behnera, Tehsil And District Bharatpur Rajasthan.

2. State Of Rajasthan, Through District Collector, Bharatpur. ----Respondents/Defendants For Appellant(s) : Mr. Raj Kumar Goyal, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Nikhlesh Katara, Adv. Mr. Harshit Parashar, Adv. for Mr. Neeraj Batra, GC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA 24/07/2025 Order This civil second appeal has been filed by the appellants- plaintiffs (for short 'the plaintiffs') against the judgment and decree dated 30.07.2022 passed by Additional District Judge No. 1, Bharatpur (for short 'the first appellate Court') in civil appeal No. 19/2021, whereby the first appellate Court while dismissing [2025:RJ-JP:27864] (2 of 5) [CSA-255/2022] the appeal affirmed the judgment and decree dated 26.11.2018 passed by Civil Judge, Bharatpur in civil suit No. 182/2015, by which the trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs filed a civil suit for permanent injunction against the defendants and mentioned therein that the land situated in Village Bahnera, Bharatpur, is in their ownership and possession for the last 50 years. The land was shown in yellow, brown, blue, green, and red colors and marked as A, B, C, D, E, F, and G in the map annexed with the plaint. It was further mentioned that the plaintiffs obtained a patta of the said land from Gram Panchayat Bahnera, Panchayat Samiti Sevar, District Bharatpur, on 21.12.2004. The defendants have no concerned with the disputed land. Despite ownership, defendant No. 1 wanted to dispossess the plaintiffs from the said land. Therefore, the suit filed by the plaintiffs be decreed in their favour. Defendant No. 1 filed a written statement and denied the averments made in the plaint stating that the disputed land does not belong to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs attempted to encroach upon the pathway. On 10.07.2015, officials of Defendant No. 2 removed the encroachment. The plaintiffs have not approached the court with clean hands, and the Gram Panchayat had no authority to grant patta for revenue land. Therefore, the suit filed by the plaintiffs be dismissed. Defendant No. 2 also reiterated the averments made in the written statements filed by defendant No. 1. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed following issues:- [2025:RJ-JP:27864] (3 of 5) [CSA-255/2022] 1- vk;k okni= dh en la[;k&1 esa of.kZr CY;w fizaV uD'ks esa jax lq[kZ ls nf'kZr tk;nkn ekdZ ,chlhMhbZ,Qth ij oknhx.k yxHkx ipkl o"kZ iwoZ ls dkfct gksdj oS/k vkf/kiR;/kkjh gS \ 2- vk;k oknhx.k fo:) izfroknhx.k okafNr LFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gS \ 3- vk;k oknhx.k }kjk xSjeqefdu ljdkjh jkLrs ij vfrdze.k fd;k tk jgk gS \ 4- vk;k gLrxr okn esa U;k;ky; gktk dks Jo.kkf/kdkj izkIr ugha gS \ 5- vuqrks"k \ To prove its case the plaintiff got examined PW-1-Murari Lal, PW-2-Mahendra Singh, PW-3-Mool Singh and PW-4-Buddha and to prove their case, defendants got examined Ramesh Chand as DW- 1 and Lalit Kumar Purohit as DW-2. After hearing the parties, the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 26.11.2018, dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree dated

26.11.2018, plaintiffs filed an appeal before the first appellate Court and the first appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 30.07.2022 dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiffs and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 26.11.2018 passed by the trial Court. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that the trial court as well as the first appellate Court had committed an error in dismissing the suit and dismissing the appeal filed by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs had long possession on the disputed land, [2025:RJ-JP:27864] (4 of 5) [CSA-255/2022] as shown in the map annexed with the plaint. The defendants have no concerned to the disputed land and wrongfully dispossessed the plaintiffs. The Gram Panchayat was authorized to issue the patta, which was never cancelled. So, the 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 counsel for the plaintiffs and submits that the plaintiffs encroached upon the pathway, which is not permissible, and the said encroachment has also removed. The Gram Panchayat had no authority to issue a patta for the land in question. So, the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court had not committed any error in dismissing the suit as well as the appeal filed by the plaintiff. Therefore, the present appeal filed by the plaintiffs being devoid of merit as no substantial question of law is made out for admitting the present appeal. Hence, the appeal filed by the plaintiffs be dismissed. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the plaintiffs as well as the learned counsel for the defendants and perused the impugned judgments. It is an admitted position that plaintiffs had encroached upon the pathway and Gram Panchayat had no authority to issue the patta for the said pathway. So, in my considered opinion, the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court had not committed any error in dismissing the suit and the appeal filed by the plaintiffs. Therefore, no substantial question of law is made out for admitting the present appeal. So, the present appeal filed by the plaintiffs [2025:RJ-JP:27864] (5 of 5) [CSA-255/2022] being bereft of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. Tahir/75 (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J