HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Second Appeal No v. 1. Municipal Counsil Chabra, Through

Judgment

1. Municipal Counsil Chabra, Through - (A) Chairman, Municipal Council Chabra, District Baran (Raj.) (B) Executive Officer, Municipal Council Chabra, District Baran (Raj.)

Bairwa Samaj Chabra, Through President Shri Chhitarlal S/o Shri Heeralal, R/o Sunda, Tehsil Atru, District Baran (Raj.)

3. State Of Rajasthan, Through District Collector, Baran, District Baran (Raj.) ----Respondents/Defendants For Appellant(s) : Mr. R. K. Daga For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sampat Lal Songara Mr. Rahul Tiwari Mr. Manoj Kumar and Ms. Pooja Dixit for Mr. G.S. Gill, AAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA 07/08/2025 Judgment The civil second appeal has been filed by the appellant- plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) against the judgment and decree dated 02.11.2019 passed by the Additional District Judge, Chabra Distt. Baran (for short ‘the first appellate Court’) in Civil Regular Appeal No. 34/2019, whereby the appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff and affirmed the judgment and decree [2025:RJ-JP:30462] (2 of 5) [CSA-6/2020] dated 10.10.2019 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Chabra, Distt. Baran in civil suit No. 01/2010, by which the trial court dismissed the plaintiff’s suit for permanent injunction. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondents-defendants (for short ‘the defendants’) in which it was stated that the defendant No.3 allotted a land admeasuring 01 bigha under Rule 1965 for lime furnace on 28.11.1980 to the plaintiff and the said land was set apart by the Revenue Officer in Trace Map. On 03.11.1981, possession was handed over to the plaintiff in compliance of the allotment. Plaintiff raised the construction of lime furnace and he is in possession of the land in question. Defendant No.2 wrongly put a Board over the land and wrote down that land is reserved for Bairwa Samaj Hostel, Chabra. Defendant No.1 had got no right for allotment of this land and they want to dispossess the plaintiff in garb of illegal allotment. Defendants filed the written statement and stated that the lime furnace was closed since long and that was renewed after 5 years. Khasra No.622 is the property of Municipal Council, which is surrounded by urban area. So, land admeasuring 100 x 100 ft. was allotted to Bairwa Samaj. So, suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed. On the basis of pleadings of parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:- “1- vk;k fd okni= dh en la[;k 1] 2 o 3 esa of.kZrkuqlkj vkjkth [kljk uEcj 622 jdck 1 ch?kk oknh dks pwuk HkV~Vk gsrq vkoafVr Hkwfe gS ftl ij mldh Qsflax o pwuk HkV~Vk e; ckWMh ekStwn gS\ [2025:RJ-JP:30462] (3 of 5) [CSA-6/2020] 2- vk;k fd mDr Hkwfe ls izfroknhx.k oknh dks csn[ky djus o QsfUlx o pwuk HkV~Vs dks rksMdj ml ij cSjok lekt Nk=kokl cukus ij vkeknk gS\ 3- vk;k fd oknh dk vkoafVr iV~Vs dh vof/k fnukad 27-11-1985 rd gh ekU; Fkh o mlds ckn uohuhdj.k ugha gksus ls vkoaVu jn~n gks pqdk gS\ 4- vk;k fd lEcfU/kr Hkw[k.M uxjikfydk NcMk ds LokfeRo dh gS] ftls loZlEefr ls izLrko ysdj cSjok lekt ds Nk=kokl gsrq fd;k x;k gS\ 5- vuqrks"k\” To prove his case, plaintiff got himself examined as PW-1- Gajendra Kumar, got examined PW-2 Salim, PW-3- Nandkishore & PW-4- Gopal Lal. The defendants also got examined DW-1- Chhitarlal, DW-2- Ramcharan, DW-3- Gulabchand, DW-4- Mangilal, DW-5- Balmukund and DW-6- Nandlal Suman. After hearing the parties, the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 10.10.2019, dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. Plaintiff challenged the said judgment and decree dated

10.10.2019 passed by the trial Court and the appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 02.11.2019 dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the trial Court as well as the appellate court committed an error in dismissing the suit as well as the appeal filed by the plaintiff. Both the courts had not appreciated the evidence led by the parties. Learned counsel for the plaintiff also submits that although, both the courts have held that plaintiff is in possession of the land in question and that has been allotted for lime furnace and issue Nos.1 and 2 was [2025:RJ-JP:30462] (4 of 5) [CSA-6/2020] decided in favour of the plaintiff. So, there was no occasion for the learned courts below to dismiss the suit as well as appeal filed by the plaintiff. Plaintiff is having possession of the disputed land. No counter claimed was filed by the defendant No.3. No document was filed for cancellation of the lime furnace. So, allotment cannot be cancelled. As per Section 111 of Transfer of Property Act, determination of the lease can be made in the suit for possession or ejectment. Disputed land is Gair Mumkin. So, cannot be allotted to Bairwa Samaj. So, findings of the trial court as well as appellate court deserve to be set aside. So, 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 counsel for the plaintiff and submitted that lime furnace was allotted to the plaintiff in the year 1980 for 5 years. After that, he had not renewed the same. So, he had no right for possession over the disputed land. So, land was rightly allotted to Bairwa Samaj. Both the courts below rightly came to the conclusion that plaintiff had no right for disputed land. So, the appeal filed by the plaintiff be dismissed. I have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for the plaintiff as well as counsel for the defendants. It is an admitted position that after a lapse of 5 years, plaintiff had not applied for renewal of the lease and no documents was submitted by the plaintiff that he had renewed the lease deed. So, in my considered opinion, after a lapse of 5 years, plaintiff had no right to retain the possession of the disputed land. So, trial court as well as appellate court rightly dismissed the suit [2025:RJ-JP:30462] (5 of 5) [CSA-6/2020] as well as appeal filed by the plaintiff. So, no substantial question of law is made out for admitting the present appeal. So, the present appeal filed by the plaintiff being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. Jatin/67 (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J