HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 11/2009 Ram Lal Choudhary, S/o Shri Seva Ram, Pabana Mandi, Teh. Nawalgarh, Distt. Jhunjhunu Raj. ----Appellant Versus 1. District Collector, Jhunjhunu 2. Deputy Collector, Nawalgarh Teh., Nawalgarh, Distt. Jhunjhunu 3. Tehsildar, Nawalgarh Teh., Nawalgarh, Distt. Jhunjhunu 4. President, Nagarpalika, Mukundgarh Teh. Nawalgarh, Distt. Jhunjhunu ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ashwani Chobisa, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Arun Singh Shekhawat, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment 23/07/2025 This civil second appeal has been filed by the appellant- plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) against the judgment and decree dated 17.07.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu (for short ‘the appellate court’) in civil regular appeal No. (16/2006) 14/2006 whereby the appellate court while dismissing the appeal filed by the plaintiff, affirmed the judgment and decree dated 28.02.2006 passed by the Civil Judge(Senior Division), Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu (for short ‘the trial court’) in Civil Suit No.20/97, by which the trial court dismissed plaintiff’s suit for permanent injunction. (2 of 4) [CSA-11/2009] Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a civil suit for permanent injunction against the respondents-defendants (for short ‘the defendants’) mentioning therein that the disputed land was in the ownership and possession of the plaintiff which was situated at Pabana Mandi, which was later on included in Municipal Council, Mukundgarh. It was further pleaded that patta of the disputed land was issued by the Development Officer of Panchayat Samiti, Nawalgarh in favour of the plaintiff on 14.11.1975. After obtaining the patta of the disputed land, the plaintiff constructed a room thereon and obtained water and electricity connection. The plaintiff has also got installed a furnace and selling the sweets. In the garb of the removal of encroachment campaign, the defendants were bent upon to evict the plaintiff from the disputed land. So, suit for permanent injunction may be decreed. Defendants filed the written statement and denied the averments made in the plaint and stated that the plaintiff was having illegal possession on the public way and the Gram Panchayat/Panchayat Samiti had no authority to issue the patta in favour of any one. 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 okn i= ds iSjk ua- 2 esa of.kZr fookfnr Hkw[k.M oknh ds dCts ,oa LokfeRo dk gS \ 2- vk;k fookfnr Hkw[k.M vke jkLrs dk Hkw&Hkkx gS \ 3- vk;k nkok nk;jh ls igys nks ekg dk uksfVl fn;s fcuk nkok [kkfjt gksus ;ksX; gS \ 4- vk;k U;k;’kqYd de vnk fd;k x;k gS \ 5- vuqrks"k \ (3 of 4) [CSA-11/2009] To prove his case, the plaintiff got himself examined as PW- 1, PW-2 Narendra and PW-3 Asharam and got exhibited certain documents. To prove their case, the defendants got examined DW- 1 Bhagirath Mal, DW-2 Narayan Singh and also got exhibited certain documents. After hearing both the parties, the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 28.02.2006 dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree dated 28.02.2006, the plaintiff filed an appeal before the appellate court. The appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 17.07.2008 dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 28.02.2006 passed by the trial court. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the trial court as well as the appellate court have committed an error in dismissing the suit as well as appeal filed by the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the plaintiff further submits that the defendants failed to prove that the disputed land is a public way. Learned counsel for the plaintiff also submits that the plaintiff was a having the patta of the disputed land which has not been cancelled till today. So, it can not be said that the patta issued in favour of the plaintiff was forged one. So, the judgment and decree passed by both the courts below require to be set-aside and the present second appeal is required to be admitted on the substantial questions of law, as framed in the memo of appeal and both the parties be directed to maintain status quo over the disputed land. Learned counsel for the defendants has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the plaintiff and (4 of 4) [CSA-11/2009] submitted that the plaintiff had encroached upon the public way. So, the trial court as well as the appellate court rightly dismissed the suit as well as appeal filed by the plaintiff. The patta issued in favour of the plaintiff is forged one and the Gram Panchayat and Panchayat Samiti had no right to issue the patta of the disputed land as it is a public way. So, no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. Hence, the appeal be dismissed. I have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgments. It is an admitted position that the plaintiff failed to prove his case before the trial court as well as the appellate court because the defendants in their evidence categorically stated that the disputed land is a public way and the plaintiff had encroached upon it. 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 plaintiff. 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 Gourav/71