HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 325/2010 1. Chairman, Municipal Board, Bari 2. Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Bari, Distt. Dholpur Raj. ---Defendants-Appellants Versus 1. Vishnu Dayal S/o Rameshwar Dayal B/c Vaishy, Mohallan Hod, Town Bari, Distt. Dholpur Raj. Plaintiff-Respondent 2. State Of Rajasthan Through Collector, Dholpur Raj. ---Proforma Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. B. K. Sharma, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. N. C. Sharma, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment 25/07/2025 This civil second appeal has been filed by the appellants- defendants (for short ‘the defendants’) against the judgment and decree dated 14.12.2009 passed by District Judge, Dholpur (for short ‘the first appellate court’) in civil appeal No.32/2009, whereby the first appellate court while dismissing the appeal filed the defendants, affirmed the judgment and decree dated 20.07.2009 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Bari, District Dholpur (for short ‘the trial court’) in civil case No.102/93, by which the trial court while decreeing the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff (for short 'the plaintiff'), declared the plaintiff as an owner of the disputed land admeasuring 60X38 Ft. which was shown in the map with red ink annexed with the plaint and (2 of 5) [CSA-325/2010] bound down the defendants on the injunction that they do not demolish the construction being raised on the disputed plot and not to create any hindrance in the ownership and possession of the plaintiff. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a civil suit for permanent injunction and declaration against the defendants with regard to a plot measuring 45 x 60 ft. situated in Mohalla Hod, Town Bari, mentioning therein that the said plot was purchased by the plaintiff from one Madho Singh through a sale deed dated 31.12.1987 in a sale consideration of Rs. 10,000/-. Plaintiff submitted an application on 11.01.1988 for obtaining permission for raising construction before Municipality, Bari but the Executive Officer rejected the same on 28.01.1988. Against the said rejection order, the plaintiff filed an appeal before the District Collector, Dholpur who remanded the matter to Administrator, Municipal Board, Bari, leaving which, the Administrator inspected the site and 7 ft. land granted permission to the plaintiff for raising the construction vide order dated 26.09.1989. The said order dated 26.09.1989 was assailed in appeal before the District Collector, Dholpur. The District Collector, Dholpur vide order dated 23.07.1990 allowed the appeal and held that disputed land is a Government land. Plaintiff assailed the order dated 23.07.1990 before the Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur by way appeal and the same was rejected vide order dated 10.07.1991.Thereafter, the plaintiff sent a notice under Section 271 of the Municipal Act to the defendants. Later on, the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of ownership of the disputed land and also sought the permanent injunction. (3 of 5) [CSA-325/2010] Defendants filed the written statement and denied the averments made in the plaint and categorically stated that Madho Singh himself was not the owner of the disputed land. Plaintiff utterly failed to disclose his ownership. So, disputed land vests in municipality as nazul land. So, the suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed the following issues:- 1- vk;k fookfnr HkwHkkx layXu okni= esa o jax yky dk oknh Lokeh o vkf/kiR;/kkjh gSA 2- vk;k layXu uD’kk okni= esa o jax uhyk Hkkx 60x7 QqV ^d] [k] x] ?k* dks NksM+dj o jax lq[kkZ Hkkx dh fuekZ.k Lohd`fr fn- 27-10-89 dks izfroknh us oknh dks nh] ftlls izfroknhx.k ikcUn gSA 3- vk;k izfroknhx.k dks LFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk ls ikcUn djkus dk vf/kdkjh gS fd og fookfnr Hkw[k.M ls oknh ds dCts esa fdlh izdkj dk gLr{ksi u djs ml ij gks jgs fuekZ.k dks /oLr u djs u dCtk djsA 4- vk;k oknh us U;k; 'kqYd de vnk fd;k gSA 5- vuqrks"kA To prove his case, the plaintiff got himself examined as PW- 1, PW-2 Babu, PW-3 Aziz Khan and PW-4 Bishambar Dayal and got exhibited certain documents. To prove their case, the defendants got examined DW-1 Ratan Singh Meena, DW-2 Hamid Ali and got exhibited certain documents. After hearing both the parties, the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 20.07.2009 decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff in his favour. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree dated (4 of 5) [CSA-325/2010] 20.07.2009, the defendants filed an appeal before the first appellate court. The first appellate Court vide judgment dated 14.12.2009 while dismissing the appeal filed by the defendants, affirmed the judgment and decree dated 20.07.2009 passed by the trial court. Learned counsel for the defendants submits that the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court had committed an error in decreeing the suit as well as in dismissing the appeal. The plaintiff failed to produce the chain of documents with regard to his ownership over the disputed land. They merely asserted that they had purchased the disputed land from one Madho Singh but no evidence with regard to Madho Singh's ownership over the land in question was produced, and no documentary evidence was filed. So, every nazul land vests in the municipality as per State Government Notification dated 08.10.1959. So, the judgments passed by both the courts below are required to 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 plaintiff has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendants and submitted that the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court had not committed any error in decreeing the suit as well as in dismissing the appeal because disputed land was purchased by the plaintiff from Madho Singh. There was no cogent evidence adduced by the defendants to show that the disputed land belongs to the municipality. So, the appeal filed by the defendants deserves to be dismissed. (5 of 5) [CSA-325/2010] I have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgments. It is an admitted position that the defendants failed to adduce the cogent evidence that disputed land belongs to the municipality. Plaintiff had filed a registered sale deed which was executed by Madho Singh in his favour. So, in my considered opinion, the trial court rightly decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff and the appellate court rightly dismissed the appeal filed by the defendants. 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. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Tahir/55