[2025:RJ-JP:29032] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 465/2011 Mahaveer Prasad S/o Shri Bhawani Shankar, Village Sawan Bhado, Sub-Tehsil Kanwas, Distt. Kota Raj. ----Appellant-Plaintiff Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through District Collector, Kota Rajasthan 2. Tehsildar, Tehsil Sangod, Distt. Kota Raj. 3. Naib Tehsildar, Sub-Tehsil Kanwas, Distt. Kota Raj. ----Respondents-Defendants For Appellant(s) : Mr. Amitesh Rana, Adv. for Mr. Rajesh Mootha, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Poonam Rao, Adv. for Mr. Neeraj Batra, GC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Order 30/07/2025 This civil second appeal has been filed by the appellant- plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) against the judgment and decree dated 04.04.2011 passed by Additional District Judge, Ramganj Mandi, District Kota (for short ‘the first appellate court’) in civil regular appeal No.11/2005, whereby the first appellate court while allowing the appeal filed the defendants, set aside the judgment and decree dated 09.05.2005 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) & Judicial Magistrate, Kanwas, District Kota (for short ‘the trial court’) in civil suit No.9/2002, by which the trial court decreed the plaintiff's suit for declaration and permanent injunction. [2025:RJ-JP:29032] (2 of 4) [CSA-465/2011] Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a civil suit for permanent injunction and declaration against the defendants in which mentioned that disputed land belongs to the plaintiff's ancestors in Village Sawan Bhado, District Kota. The said land shown in red ink in the plaint, admeasuring 100ft. from East to West and 130 ft. from North to South, total area of 17 biswa. In revenue records, land is recorded as a khasra No. 902 admeasuring 1 bigah 2 biswa as gair mumkin land. Defendants had wrongly issued notice under Section 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act to the plaintiff. Plaintiff had a peaceful possession over the disputed land. Defendants filed the written statement and denied the averments made in the plaint and categorically stated that the plaintiff had no possession over the disputed land for the last 100 years and he had encroached upon it. It was further mentioned that, notice under Section 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act was issued to the plaintiff. So, the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed the following issues:- ^^1- vk;k okn ds iSjk ua- 2 esa of.kZr lhekvksa ds e/; dk Hkw[k.M ftls okn i= ds lkFk layXu uD'ks esa jax lq[kZ ls n'kkZ;k x;k gS oknh ds vkf/kiR; dk gS ftl ij oknh dk [kfygku oxSjk yxkus dk lq[kkf/kdkj izkIr gks x;k gS\ 2- vk;k ml [kfygku dh Hkwfe dh voS/k rjhds ls fdLe ifjofrZr djds vkcknh esa ntZ dh tk jgh gS\ 3- vk;k okn dk U;k;ky; dks Jo.kkf/kdkj ugha gS\ 4- vuqrks"k\** [2025:RJ-JP:29032] (3 of 4) [CSA-465/2011] To prove his case, the plaintiff got examined PW-1 Mahaveer Prasad, PW-2 Tulsi Ram & PW-3 Mukut Bihari and got exhibited certain documents. To prove their case, the defendants got examined DW-1 Gordhan Lal Meena, DW-2 Bhairu Lal and DW-3 Ramswaroop Arvind and got exhibited certain documents. After hearing both the parties, the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 09.05.2005 decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff in his favour and restrained the defendants to create hurdle in use and occupation of the agricultural land. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree dated 09.05.2005, the defendants filed an appeal before the first appellate court. The first appellate Court vide judgment dated 04.04.2011 while allowing the appeal filed by the defendants, set aside the judgment and decree dated 09.05.2005 passed by the trial court. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the first appellate Court had committed an error in setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court as it is an admitted position that plaintiff has possession over the disputed land. So, proceedings under Section 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act cannot be initiated to evict the plaintiff. So, the judgment passed by the first appellate Court be set-aside and the present second appeal 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 defendants and submitted that the first appellate Court rightly came to the conclusion that plaintiff is an encroacher upon revenue land and the civil court had no jurisdiction to try it. Proceedings under [2025:RJ-JP:29032] (4 of 4) [CSA-465/2011] Section 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act can't be challenged before the Civil Court. So, the appeal filed by the defendants being devoid of merit, is liable to 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 had encroached upon the disputed land. Proceedings under Section 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act was initiated against him. Instead of challenging the said proceedings before the Revenue Court, plaintiff filed the suit before the Civil Court. The civil Court had no jurisdiction to try it. So, in my considered opinion, the appellate court rightly allowed the appeal filed by the defendants. 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 Tahir/58