[2025:RJ-JP:13559] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 133/2002 Gaffar Beg S/o Nashir Beg, Makabara, Todabhim, Tehsil Todabhim, District Karauli (Deceased) 1/1. Amina Beg W/o late shri Gaffar Beg, age 65 years. 1/2. Shabnam D/o late shri Gaffar Beg, age 35 years. 1/3. Sardar Beg S/o late shri Gaffar Beg, age 33 years. I/4. Ishrar Beg S/o late shri Gaffar Beg, age 30 years. 1/5. Shahid Beg S/o late shri Gaffar Beg, age 25 years. 1/6. Jahida alias Tarnnum D/o late shri Gaffar Beg, age 20 years. 1/7. Anjum D/o late S/o shri Gaffar Beg, age 18 years. 1/8. Afzal Beg S/o late shri Gaffar Beg, age 16 years. (All resident of Gram Makabara, Nahar Khora Road, near Water Bux, Post Todabhim District Karauli) 1/9. Smt. Shahanaj D/o late Shri Gaffar Beg, W/o Shri Chand Mohd. Age 28 years, R/o Near AK Minar Majisd, Chandraghata, Ghantaghar, Kota ----Plaintiff-Appellant Versus State Of Rajasthan Through Tehsildar, Tehsil Todabhim, Distt. Karauli ----Defendant-Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. M.M. Ranjan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Lokesh Tiwari For Respondent(s) : Ms. Poonam Yadav for Mr. Neeraj Batra, GC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Judgment 19/03/2025 1. Instant second appeal is preferred by appellant-plaintiff who expired during pendency of the appeal and his legal heirs were substituted in place of deceased appellant. The appeal is preferred aggrieved and dissatisfied from judgment dated 24.07.2001 in civil regular appeal No.34/1998 passed by learned Additional [2025:RJ-JP:13559] (2 of 6) [CSA-133/2002] District Judge, Hindaun City, District Karauli whereby on an appeal preferred by defendant a judgment and decree dated 27.05.1998 in civil suit No.35/1991 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (J.D.) No.1, Hindaun City, District Karauli was set aside and suit of plaintiff was dismissed. 2. Initially, a suit for permanent injunction was filed by plaintiff Gaffar Beg and same was decreed on 27.05.1998 restraining the respondent-defendant from dispossession and demolition of construction of house raised by plaintiff. 3. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant plaintiff while referring the grounds of appeal submitted that the plaintiff filed a civil suit on basis of possessory title, which was decreed by learned trial court, but without any cogent reason interfered by the Appellate Court. He submitted that the plaintiff is in possession of suit property from time immemorial during lifetime of his forefathers and an application is already filed before the Village Panchayat and on an enquiry it was found that plaintiff is in settled possession. He further submitted a proceeding under Section 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (for short ‘the Act of 1956’) was initiated against the plaintiff but later was dropped. At last, he submitted that a question of law has been framed by this Hon’ble Court, as without assigning any reason the Appellate Court has reversed the judgment passed by the trial court and the judgment of appellate court is without any authority hence same has to be set aside and judgment of trial court may be restored. [2025:RJ-JP:13559] (3 of 6) [CSA-133/2002] 4. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Counsel appearing for the State and submitted that the matter pertains to pasture land and trial court has committed serious error while granting a decree on basis of possession in a matter relating to pasture land. She submits that even Village Panchayat is not competent to issue patta on pasture land. At last, she submitted that so long as pasture land is recorded in record, the plaintiff has no right or authority to maintain his possession. 5. Heard learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant and learned counsel for the respondent. 6. After considering grounds, the appeal was admitted on 20.09.2007 and following substantial questions of law framed by this Court:- “Whether the appellate court was justified in reversing the finding rendered by the trial court without meeting to the reasonings given by the trial court in view of Order 41 Rule 31 C.P.C.?” 7. A perusal of record indicate that plaintiff has filed a case on basis of possessory title and claimed possession from the time of his forefathers. The plaintiff has examined as many as 5 witnesses and exhibited 9 documents whereas 2 witnesses were examined by the defendants. It is brought on record that initially a proceedings under Section 91 of the Act of 1956 was initiated against the plaintiff but later due to decision of Village Panchayat, some charges were deposited by plaintiff. The proceeding initiated by Tehsildar under Section 91 of the Act of 1956 said to be dropped. The trial court after considering the evidence has [2025:RJ-JP:13559] (4 of 6) [CSA-133/2002] decided issue No.1 in favour of plaintiff but decided issue Nos.2 and 3 against the defendant and ultimately decreed the suit in favour of plaintiff. 8. The Appellate Court has considered the issue that land in question belongs to Khasra No.67 and now new Khasra number is 133 to 134, 147 and 151 and recorded as a pasture land. The Appellate Court has considered that the trial court on basis of patta Ex.2 and also considering abadi area has drawn conclusion in favour of plaintiff. 9. Here in this case, the Appellate Court has considered the case of plaintiff and referred the evidence of PW-1 wherein he admitted that his possession is on Khasra No.142 and according to record, Khasra No.133 to 144 is a pasture land. The evidence of PW-2 Surendra Kumar suggested that plaintiffs have encroached upon 5 ares land. A jamabandi (revenue record) relating to Samwat 2052 is filed on record and exhibited as Ex. 1A to Ex. 3A and same is a pasture land. 10. A pasture land is defined as a land used for grazing livestock. The local bodies like Panchayat are entrusted with the responsibility of protection of pasture land. The Panchayats are bound to protect encroachment upon the pasture land. 11. In case of Jagpal Singh & Ors vs State Of Punjab & Ors : (2000) 11 SCC 396, Hon’ble Supreme Court has directed the State Governments to prepare a scheme for eviction of illegal and unauthorized occupants on pasture land so as to protect unauthorized intrusion over the land. [2025:RJ-JP:13559] (5 of 6) [CSA-133/2002] 12. A Division Bench of this Court in case of Jagdish Prasad Meena and Ors. Vs. State of Rajashtan and Ors.: D.B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No.10819/2018 has directed a solution to the problem of encroachment on land of public way, Johar pathan, river bed including pasture land etc. In case of Abdul Rehman Vs. State of Rajasthan : (2004) 4 WLC (Raj.) 435, a Division Bench of this Court while considering the provisions of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 in light of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra Vs. State of U.P. : AIR 1985 SC 652 has issued several direction for protection of natural resources and also for conservation of environment. A pasture land plays a crucial rule in sustainable agriculture by providing forage for livestock, contributing to soil health and potentially reducing health erosion. A pasture land cannot be used for development of habitants, particularly, regularizing possession of any person or making allotment to anyone, either for residential purpose or for commercial purpose. 13. Having considered aforesaid, the matter pertains to a pasture land and material placed on record clearly indicate the trial court has ignored the evidence both oral and documentary including admission of PW-1 while drawing a conclusion in favour of plaintiff. The Appellate Court has rightly interpreted the evidence on record, in accordance with law. After considering the submission and legal position the land in question is a pasture land, therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled for any protection or seek injunction and Appellate Court has rightly set aside the [2025:RJ-JP:13559] (6 of 6) [CSA-133/2002] findings on issue No.1, recorded by the trial Court. The Appellate Court has not committed any error of fact and law while reversing the findings. Thus, the issue is answered in negative. 14. In view of discussion made hereinabove, the instant second appeal preferred aggrieved from judgment and decree dated 24.07.2001 in Civil Regular Appeal No.34/1998 is hereby dismissed with pending application(s), if any. 15. No order as to costs. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J MR/26