[2025:RJ-JP:30450] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 220/2016 1. Tolya Ram S/o Rekha, Naya Gaon, Bolka Teh. Rajgarh Distt. Alwar, Raj. 2. Kishanlal S/o Birbal, Naya Gaon, Bolka Teh. Rajgarh Distt. Alwar, Raj. 3. Girraj Prasad S/o Birbal, Naya Gaon, Bolka Teh. Rajgarh Distt. Alwar, Raj. ----Appellants Versus 1. State Of Rajastha Through District Collector, Alwar, Raj. 2. District Forest Officer, Samajik Vaniki, Alwar Raj. 3. Regional Director Tiger Project, Sariska, Alwar Raj. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Girish Khandelwal, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rahul Lodha, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Order 07/08/2025 This Civil Second Appeal has been filed by the appellants- plaintiffs (for short ‘the plaintiffs’) against the judgment and decree dated 02.02.2016 passed Additional District Judge Rajgarh, District Alwar in Civil Regular Appeal No.24/2012, whereby the appellate court dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiffs and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 12.10.2012 passed by Civil Judge (J.D.) Rajgarh, Alwar in Civil Suit No.53/1999, by which the trial court dismissed the plaintiffs’ suit for permanent injunction. [2025:RJ-JP:30450] (2 of 4) [CSA-220/2016] Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants in which it was stated that a Bada admeasuring east to west 75 feet and north to south 60 feet total 500 sq. yards is situated in Village Naya Gaon Bolka Tehsil Rajgarh, District Alwar which was allotted to their ancestor Birbal by the Tehsildar Rajgarh out of land of Khasra No.282 on 31.05.1991 and was accordingly recorded in the revenue record in Jamabandi of the year 2050 to 2053. They were in possession since allotment. Subsequently, rest land of the said Khasra No.282 was allotted by the State Government to the defendant No.2 Forest Department on 29.09.1997. Under the garb of said allotment, the defendants wanted to dispossess the plaintiffs. Defendants filed written statement and stated that disputed Bada of the plaintiffs is Forest Department land Range Tehla, which was transferred in favour of Forest Department vide Mutation No.65 . Plaintiffs have no concerned with the disputed land. So, suit filed by the plaintiffs be dismissed. On the basis of pleadings of parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:- ^^1- D;k fookfnr ckMk oknhx.k dh feyfd;r edcwtk gS\ 2- D;k izfroknhx.k oknhx.k dks fookfnr ckMs ls csn[ky dj Lo;a dCtk djuk pkgrs gS ftldk mUgsa vf/kdkj ugha gS\ 3- D;k okn mfpr U;k; 'kqYd ij gS\ 4- D;k oknhx.k us jkT; ljdkj dks 80 lh0 ih0 lh0 dk uksfVl ugha fn;k gSA ftl dkj.k nkok [kkfjt gksus ;ksX; gS\ 5- D;k nkok bl U;k;ky; ds {ks=kf/kdkj esa ugha gS\ 6- vuqrks"k\** [2025:RJ-JP:30450] (3 of 4) [CSA-220/2016] To prove its case, plaintiffs got himself examined as PW1- Tolya, PW2-Kajodmal and PW3-Prabhati Lal. Defendants got examined as DW1-Ashok Kumar and DW2-Jalhari Meena. After hearing the parties, the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 12.10.2012, dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs preferred an appeal against the said judgment and decree dated 12.10.2012. The appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 02.02.2016 dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiffs and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 12.10.2012. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court committed an error in dismissing the suit as well as appeal filed by the plaintiffs. It is an admitted position that disputed Bada was allotted to the ancestor of the plaintiff Birbal on 31.05.1991 by Tehsildar Rajgarh. Since then, they were in possession and they had constructed a wall and also constructed the house there but State Government had allotted Khasra No.282 to the Forest Department on 29.09.1997 but the trial court had committed error and did not consider the fact that without cancelling the patta of the said land, it was allotted to the Forest Department. So, judgment and decree dated 02.02.2016 passed by the appellate court as well as judgment and decree dated 12.10.2012 passed by the trial court be set aside and the present appeal filed by the plaintiffs deserves to be admitted on the substantial questions of law formulated in the appeal. Learned counsel for the defendants has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the plaintiffs and submits that there are concurrent findings of fact against the [2025:RJ-JP:30450] (4 of 4) [CSA-220/2016] plaintiffs. It is an admitted position that land was allotted to the Forest Department and mutation was opened in the name of the Forest Department. Plaintiffs had not challenged the mutation entries. So, civil court had no jurisdiction to try it. Plaintiffs had right to challenge the said mutation and allotment made in favour of the Forest Department before the revenue court. So, trial court as well as appellate court rightly dismissed the suit as well as appeal filed by the plaintiffs. So, present appeal filed by the plaintiffs be dismissed. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the plaintiffs as well as learned counsel for the defendants. It is an admitted position that disputed land bearing Khasra No.282 was allotted to the Forest Department. Plaintiffs had not challenged the said allotment and mutation entries before the revenue court. So, in my considered opinion, trial court as well as appellate court had not committed any error in dismissing the suit as well as appeal filed by the plaintiffs. So, no substantial question of law is made out for admitting the present appeal. So, the present appeal filed by the plaintiffs 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 Jatin /49