[2025:RJ-JP:32093] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 74/2009 Prahlad S/o Shri Jagannath R/o Shitla Mohalla, Bus Stand, Sawaimadhopur. ----Appellant Versus Nagar Palika Sawamadhopur through Adhyakarsh, Nagar Palika, Sawaimadhopur. ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Durgesh Kumar Jangid, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Tarun Jain, Adv. For Respondent(s) : None Present HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Order 18/08/2025 The civil second appeal has been filed by the appellant- plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) against the judgment and decree dated 16.12.2008 passed by the District Judge, Sawai Madhopur (for short ‘the first appellate Court’) in civil regular appeal No.19/1999 whereby the first appellate Court while allowing appeal filed by the respondent-defendant (for short ‘the defendant’), set-aside the judgment and decree dated 11.02.1999 passed by the Civil Judge (J.D.), Sawai Madhopur in civil suit No.112/86 by which the plaintiff’s suit for declaration and permanent injunction has been decreed in his favour. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendant mentioning therein that house of the plaintiff is situated at Shitla Mohalla, District Sawaimadhopur, the boundaries of which were [2025:RJ-JP:32093] (2 of 4) [CSA-74/2009] described in Para No.1 of the plaint. In the eastern side of said house, there is a Barsati Nala. The plaintiff had spent thousands of rupees on the construction of a wall measuring 17 feet wide and 20 feet higher. The plaintiff also got constructed a bridge to connect his house to the road for the safety of his children. He filed an application before the respondent for the regularization of the above mentioned land but the defendant issued a notice for the removal of the encroachment. The said land is a strip of land and is to be regularized in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is also running a Dhaba on the disputed land. Defendants filed the written statement to the plaint and denied the averments made therein and stated the plaintiff had encroached upon the disputed land. Consequently, a notice under Section 203 of the Rajasthan Municipality Act, 1959 was issued to the plaintiff. The plaintiff had encroached on the Nagar Palika’s land. Even after passing the status quo order, the plaintiff raised the construction on the disputed land. So, the construction raised by the plaintiff is to be removed and the suit filed by the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed. On the basis of pleadings of parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:- “1- vk;k okn&i= ds lkFk lyaXu uD’ks esa ,0ch0lh0Mh0 ls n’kkZ;k x;k Hkw[k.M LVªhQ vkWQ ys.M dh rkjhQ esa vkrk gS rFkk ml ij oknh dk dCtk gksus ds dkj.k og oknh ds i{k esa fu;fer gksus ;ksX; gS\ 2- vk;k oknh us izfroknh dks jktLFkku uxj ikfydk vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 271 ds vUrxZr uksfVl ugha fn;k gS] blfy, nkok oknh pyus ;ksX; ugha gS\ [2025:RJ-JP:32093] (3 of 4) [CSA-74/2009] 3- vk;k ekfy;r nkok de vkadh x;h gS rFkk dksVZ&Qhl de vnk dh x;h gS\ 4- vuqrks"k\” To prove his case, the plaintiff got himself examined as PW- 1- Prahlad, PW-2 Poonam Chand and got exhibited certain documents. The defendant also got examined DW-1- Rajendra Prasad Jain. After hearing the parties, the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 11.02.1999 while decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff, declared the disputed land as strip of land. The defendant challenged the said judgment and decree dated 11.02.1999 passed by the trial Court by filing an appeal and the first appellate Court vide judgment dated 16.12.2008 while allowing the appeal filed by the defendant, set-aside the judgment and decree dated 11.02.1999 passed by the trial court. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the first appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 16.12.2008 has committed an error in setting aside the judgment and decree dated 11.02.1999 passed by the trial court. The first appellate court has not appreciated the evidence led by the parties in the right perspective. Learned counsel for the plaintiff also submits that the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 11.02.1999 rightly held that the disputed land is a strip of land and the plaintiff is entitled to get it regularized. So, the judgment and decree dated 16.12.2008 passed by the first appellate court is required to be set aside and the present second appeal deserves to be admitted on the substantial questions of law, as framed in the memo of [2025:RJ-JP:32093] (4 of 4) [CSA-74/2009] appeal and parties may be directed to maintain status quo over the disputed land till disposal of the appeal. Despite service of notice, no one has put in appearance on behalf of the defendant. I have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for the plaintiff and perused the judgments and decree passed by the courts below. The First appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 16.12.2008 while allowing the appeal filed by the defendants rightly came to the conclusion that the civil court had no jurisdiction to declare the disputed land as a strip of land. The plaintiff himself was an encroacher on the municipality land. Therefore, the first appellate court rightly directed for removal of the encroachment. So, in my considered opinion, 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, stand(s) disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Gourav/67