[2025:RJ-JP:20605] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 7/2010 Gajendra Bhardwaj S/o Shri Shyam Sundar Bhardwaj. Resident of Bhanwar Vilas Palace, Karauli, Teh. And Distt. Karauli Raj. ----Appellant Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan Through District Collector And District Magistrate, Karauli Raj. 2. The Land Allotment Authority Sub Divisional Officer, Karauli Raj. 3. The Allotment Advisory Committee, Karauli Through Tehsildar, Teh. And Distt. Karauli Raj. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rahul Sharma, Adv with Ms. Chanchal, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ravinder Pal Singh, Adv with Ms. Priyamvada Singh, Adv for Mr. Neeraj Batra, GC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Order 15/05/2025 This second appeal has been filed by the appellant-plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) under Section 100 CPC against the judgment and decree dated 12.11.2009 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Karauli (for short ‘the appellate court’) in civil regular appeal No.97/2007 (24/2006), whereby the appellate court allowed the appeal filed by the respondents-defendants (for short ‘the defendants) and set aside the judgment and decree dated 01.06.2005 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Karuali (for short ‘the trial court’) in [2025:RJ-JP:20605] (2 of 4) [CSA-7/2010] civil suit No.19/2001, by which the trial court decreed the plaintiff’s suit. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a civil suit for permanent injunction against the defendants before the trial court, in which it was stated that land bearing khasra No.148/1 situated at village Anandgarh was allotted to him in accordance with law for storage of explosive substances in the magazine/godown. The disputed is a way which passes through the land of khasra Nos.1/2 and 1/5 in village Gunesari and leads to Aam Sadak, Karauli Road. The plaintiff has not been able to approach his magazine/godown. The surrounding land of khasra No.148/1 (measuring 226) meter was reserved due to security measures which cannot be allotted to anybody. The defendants wanted to allot the aforesaid land in violation of the relevant Rules and Regulations. So, suit filed by the plaintiff be decreed. The defendants filed the written statement and submitted that the land was barren land, which can be legally allotted. It was also contended that the plaintiff’s land was not covered with the surrounding land due to security reasons. As the land in question is agricultural land, so the suit is only triable by revenue court and suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed. On the basis of pleadings of parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:- 01- vk;k eqrkfcd okn i= vkoafVr Hkwfe ds ljkmf.Max 226 ehVj ds ?ksjs esa vU; fdlh mn~ns’; gsrq vkoafVr u fd;s tkus dks oknh ctfj;s LFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk izfroknhx.k dks ikcUn djkus dk vf/kdkj gS\ 02- vk;k oknh dks vkoafVr eSxthu fuekZ.k gsrq vkoafVr Hkwfe rd igaqpus gsrq jkLrk [kljk uEcj 1@2 o 1@5 xqusljh esa gksdj tkrk gS] ds vfrfjDr dksbZ oSdfYid [2025:RJ-JP:20605] (3 of 4) [CSA-7/2010] jkLrk u gksus ds dkj.k fdlh Hkh jhfr uhfr ls vU; O;fDr dks vkoafVr u fd;s tkus ckcr LFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk ls ikcUn djkus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ 03- vk;k fookfnr vkjkth jktLo Hkwfe gksus ls bl U;k;ky; ds Jo.k vf/kdkj ugha gS\ 04- vk;k fookfnr Hkwfe yk[kksa #i;s dh gksus ls dksVZ Qhl ukdkQh gS\ 05- vk;k Hkwfe dkfct dk’r gksus ls nhxj O;fDr;ksa dks vkoafVr gksus ;ksX; gS\ 06- vuqrks"k\ To prove his case, plaintiff got himself examined as PW-1- Gajendra. To prove its case, defendant(s) got examined Narendra as DW-1. After hearing the parties, the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 01.06.2005, decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff. The defendants had preferred an appeal against the impugned judgment dated 01.06.2005 and appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 12.11.2009 allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree dated 01.06.2005 passed by the trial court and dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that appellate court had committed error in dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff. The trail court elaborately dealt with the evidence led by the parties. The land allotted to the plaintiff was converted as commercial land, so suit could only be tried by the civil court and not by the revenue court. So, the order of the appellate court deserves to be set aside and appeal filed by the plaintiff 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 plaintiff and [2025:RJ-JP:20605] (4 of 4) [CSA-7/2010] submitted that appellate court rightly came to the conclusion that revenue court had jurisdiction to try the present suit, so the present appeal filed by the plaintiff deserves to be dismissed. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the plaintiff as well as learned counsel for the defendants and perused the impugned judgments. It is an admitted position that disputed land is revenue land and appellate court rightly came to the conclusion that suit is only triable by the revenue court and civil court had no jurisdiction to try it. So, in my considered opinion, appellate court had not committed any error in setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. So, no substantial questions 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. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J AVINASH GULERIA /31