JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 28.10.1989 passed by the Additional District Judge, No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur in civil suit No. 224/1984. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that plaintiff-respondent No. 1 (Gyanchand Jain) filed a suit for injunction and recovery of Rs. 30,000/- for demolition of boundary wall against the defendant-appellant and defendant-respondent Nos. 2 and 3, mentioning therein that he purchased a piece of land from one Jagdish Narain and others by two separate sale deeds dated 30.8.67 and 16.9.67 which was situated in Bani Park, Jaipur, measuring 1716 yards east-west and 611h yards north-south, and thus became owner of the plot. Thereafter by obtaining permission of Municipal Council, the respondent No. 1 constructed a boundary wall with two gates and a 'kothree' (small room). The defendan-appellant served a notice for demolition under Section 81 of the U.I.T. Act on 8.6.1974 against which the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 obtained stay order but the defendant-appellant demolished the boundary wall and the 'kothree' on 2.9.1976. The plaintiff-respondent No. 1 after serving the notice instituted the suit for injunction not to interfere in raising construction over the plot in dispute as per the approved map and for recovery of Rs. 30,000/- as damages for wrongful demolitions. 3. In the plaint, it was further averred that the land in dispute was owned by one Ghasi who sold the plot to Shri Gangadhar S/o Jamunalal in the year 1897. Shri Gangadhar S/o Jamunalal sold this plot to Shri Kalu Ram and Nanagram vide Ex. 4 which is a registered sale deed annexed with the map of the land, in question. One part of this plot was sold by Shri Jagdish Narain S/o Shri Nanag Ram to one Smt. Lalita Devi by a registered sale deed. The remaining part of the plot was sold by Shri Jagdish Narain S/o Nanag Ram to the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 (Gyanchand Jain). The map of the land annexed with the sale deed is Ex. 2/A. The plaintiff-respondent also purchased the plot which was owned by Lalita Devi, by a registered sale deed which is Ex. 3, as per the map annexed with the sale deed which has been marked as Ex. The map of the land annexed with the sale deed is Ex. 2/A. The plaintiff-respondent also purchased the plot which was owned by Lalita Devi, by a registered sale deed which is Ex. 3, as per the map annexed with the sale deed which has been marked as Ex. 3 / A. In this manner it was averred by the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 that by virtue of registered sale deed dated 30.8.1967 and 16.9.1967, he became absolute owner of the plot measuring 52W x 184/'. It has further been averred in the plaint that the plaintiff-respondent submitted building plans for construction before the Urban Improvement Trust, Jaipur. The Urban Improvement Trust approved the plan and issued No Objection Certificate (Ex. 5). The plaintiff-respondent deposited the required fees in Municipal Council, Jaipur, and thereafter the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 raised construction over the plot in accordance with the approved plan. The Tehsildar, Jaipur, issued a notice under Section 203 (1) of the Rajasthan Municipality Act, 1959, and Section 81 of the Urban Improvement Trust Act, 1958. To the notice, the plaintiff-respondent filed a reply and also submitted a representation to the State Government. On representation of the plaintiff-respondent, the State Government asked the Secretary, U.I.T., Jaipur, to submit the report and further directed to maintain the status quo till the decision of the State Government on the representation. The Tehsildar submitted the report to the State Government on 17.8.1974. On 2.9.1975 the State Government took a decision after considering the report and hearing both the parties and obtaining opinion from Law Department that the plaintiff-respondent and his predecessors in title are in possession of the plot for more than 60 years. The State Government further took a view that the limitation for filing of the suit for recovery of.possession is 60 years which has also been expired. The State Government further directed that the Urban Improvement Trust is not legally justified itself to dispossess the plaintiff-respondent and it may file a suit for possession on the basis of title if so advised. The Urban Improvement Trust, Jaipur, without any notice to any authority took the law in its own hands and forcibly demolished the construction of the plaintiff-respondent. The plaintiff-respondent on the basis of the above averments filed the suit for damages of Rs. 30,000/-as well as for mandatory injunction. The Urban Improvement Trust, Jaipur, without any notice to any authority took the law in its own hands and forcibly demolished the construction of the plaintiff-respondent. The plaintiff-respondent on the basis of the above averments filed the suit for damages of Rs. 30,000/-as well as for mandatory injunction. The trial Court framed as many as 12 issues on the basis of the pleadings of the parties and decreed the suit for damages and also issued mandatory injunction restraining the defendant-appellant from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff-respondent. The defendant-appellant aggrieved with the order of the learned trial Court under challenge has filed this appeal. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record. 5. The first contention of the defendant-appellant in the appeal is that the Ex. P/4 which is a document of the year 1911 is a forged document because the dimension of the plot given in Ex. 4 does not tally with sale deeds executed from time to time. 6. In reply, the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 contended that this allegation of the defendant-appellant that the dimension given in Ex. 4 does not tally with the dimension given in the subsequent sale deed, is factually incorrect. In this document the measurement has been given as under: North-south 17 ½ yds. = 52 ½ ft. East-west 61 ½ yds. = 184 ½ ft. This measurement is tallied with the dimension given in Ex. 1 which is as under: North-south 52 ½ ft. East-west 184 ½ ft. Similarly, in the document Ex. 2/ A the measurement is as under : North-south 52 ½ ft. East-west 184 ½ ft. In Exhibit-3/A it has been stated that the plaintiff-respondent purchased some piece of land measuring 20' x 30' from Lalita Devi which falls within the dimension of the entire plot. 7. On the contrary, the witness of the defendant-appellant DW-4, Rameshwar, in his cross-examination, has categorically admitted that the measurement of the plot is approximately - 48' north-west and 184' east-west. This shows very negligible discrepancy by the witness of the defendant-appellant. Thus, the plea taken by the defendant-appellant and the evidence produced are self-contradictory, as the dimensions given in Exhibit. 4 are absolutely tallying with Exhibit. 1, 2A and 3A. In the plan approved by the Urban Improvement Trust, Jaipur, (Ex. 5) also the same dimensions i.e. north-south 521/2 ft. and east-west 1841/2 ft. is mentioned. 8. Thus, the plea taken by the defendant-appellant and the evidence produced are self-contradictory, as the dimensions given in Exhibit. 4 are absolutely tallying with Exhibit. 1, 2A and 3A. In the plan approved by the Urban Improvement Trust, Jaipur, (Ex. 5) also the same dimensions i.e. north-south 521/2 ft. and east-west 1841/2 ft. is mentioned. 8. In last para of the report of the Tehsildar dated 17.8.1974, the Tehsildar has also reported that the plaintiff-respondent has got No Objection Certificate in support of the land in dispute but he made encroachment beyond the approved. plans and, therefore, in respect of excess land only the plaintiff-respondent should be vacated. 9. From the perusal of the record, it appears that, even if, there is any discrepancy, though, there is none, it does not make a document as a forged one. No such evidence has been produced by the defendant-appellant which may prove that Exhibit-1 is a forged document. The perusal of the record further shows that nothing has been asked by the appellant in his cross-examination neither with regard to Exhibit. 4 as a forged document nor anything With regard to the title over the plot in dispute. The perusal of the record further shows that no such plea was taken by the defendant-appellant in the trial court that Exhibit. 4 was a forged document and the dimensions given in Exhibit. 4 are not tallying with the dimensions given in the Ex. 1, 2A and 3A; and this plea has been taken for the first time in the appeal without any legal and valid basis. 10. The above facts were taken into consideration by the trial court while deciding the issue No. 1 and it has been held that the plaintiff-respondent was only the owner of the plot in dispute. 11. The second contention of the defendant-appellant is that the land in dispute is situated in 'khasra' No. 252 which is a Government land and owned by the Jaipur Development Authority. The defendant-appellant raised the plea regarding ownership and issue No. 1 was framed with regard to the ownership of the plot/land in dispute. 12. In reply to the second contention, the plaintiff-respondent produced the sale deeds of this land which was of the year 1911 onwards and also produced the orders of the State Government (Ex. The defendant-appellant raised the plea regarding ownership and issue No. 1 was framed with regard to the ownership of the plot/land in dispute. 12. In reply to the second contention, the plaintiff-respondent produced the sale deeds of this land which was of the year 1911 onwards and also produced the orders of the State Government (Ex. 10) dated 2.9.1975 whereby the possession of the plaintiff-respondent was admitted to be existing for over more than 60 years. The defendant-appellant has not produced any document in respect of the title to prove that khasra No. 252 is a Government land, and further that how much portion of Khasra No. 252 was transferred to Jaipur Development Authority. The appellant further failed to prove as to how this piece of land is part of khasra No. 252. Shri Umrao Prasad Arya (DW-5), Patwari of J.D.A., has stated that out of khasra No. 252 measuring 259 bigha 10 biswa, only 68 bighas and 10 biswa was transferred to Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur, in the year 1973. The defendant-appellant did not produce any document to show that 68 bigha and 10 biswa of land was transferred to it from khasra No. 252. No evidence in the form of map as to from which place to which place, the land has been transferred to J.D.A., has been produced. No question was asked by the defendant-appellant to the plaintiff-respondent when he was examined regarding the transfer of 60 bigha and 10 biswa land of Khasra No. 252 situated at Bani Park Scheme. 13. The next contention raised by the defendant-appellant that the approved plan dated 22.8.1969 was not related to the land /plot in dispute. This ground is absolutely misconceived. The plaintiff-respondent had asserted in para No. 5 of the plaint that the plans had been approved by the Urban Improvement Trust, Jaipur, on 22.8.69. The defendant-appellant filed written statement and in para No. 5 of the plaint itself stated that the plans were wrongly approved without examining the title. No detail has been given in the reply by the defendant-appellant as to why the plan was wrongly approved. DW-5, Shri Umrao Prasad, Patwari of J.D.A., Jaipur, has clearly stated that while approving the plans the title is examined and the report of the Patwari is obtained with regard to the title. No detail has been given in the reply by the defendant-appellant as to why the plan was wrongly approved. DW-5, Shri Umrao Prasad, Patwari of J.D.A., Jaipur, has clearly stated that while approving the plans the title is examined and the report of the Patwari is obtained with regard to the title. In appeal, the defendant-appellant has taken a new plea that approved plan did not relate to the plot/land in dispute. This clearly shows that the J.D.A. has taken false and incorrect statement from time to time. The appellant further contended that the plot/land in dispute was reserved for roads and partly for shops. No such plea has been taken by the defendant-appellant in its written statement. DW-5, Shri Umrao Prasad, Patwari of J.D.A., Jaipur, has clearly stated that no park or road has been shown in the land in dispute. 14. In this view of the matter, if the J.D.A. shows anything in its plans that will not effect the rights of the plaintiff-respondent which is based on valid title deeds. The defendant-appellant has acted in highly arbitrary manner and took law in its own hands and forcibly demolished the approved construction of the plaintiff-respondent without having any legal and valid order in its hand. Therefore, the trial court has rightly decreed the suit for damages against the defendant-appellant and has rightly issued permanent injunction. The defendant-appellant has taken the plea that there was an order of Tehsildar, J.D.A., dated 17.8.74 for demolition of construction. The document dated 17.8.74 is only the report.of Tehsildar, J.D.A. which was prepared in pursuance of the direction of the State Government dated 5.7.74. After perusal of the report of the Tehsildar, the State Government vide its order dated 2.9.75 directed that the plaintiff-respondent should not be dispossessed as he was in possession of the land /plot in dispute for more than 60 years. 15. In view of the facts that the State Government itself admitted the possession of the plaintiff-respondent for more than 60 years and passed the order which has not at all been challenged by the Jaipur Development Authority (defendant-appellant), that order of the State Government became final against the Jaipur Development Authority (defendant-appellant). 16. 15. In view of the facts that the State Government itself admitted the possession of the plaintiff-respondent for more than 60 years and passed the order which has not at all been challenged by the Jaipur Development Authority (defendant-appellant), that order of the State Government became final against the Jaipur Development Authority (defendant-appellant). 16. The entire facts and circumstances of the case show that the defendant-appellant tried to misguide the court as well as to keep themselves free from default of taking the law in its hand and without any order to demolish the approved construction without having any legal and valid order. 17. The other contentions raised by the learned, counsel for the defendant-appellant have also been considered by me but in view of the documents produced by the plaintiff-respondent and the decision taken by the State Government, I am of the opinion that the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the defendant-appellant are not of any force and no finding is required to be given by this Court on the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the defendant-appellant. 18. In this case an application was filed on 5.7.90 by Smt. Naraini Devi, Jagdish Narain, Raghuveer Singh, Manmohan and Babu Lal for imp leading them as party in this case. This application has been partly allowed by this Court on 16.4.91 in this manner that the applicants were not allowed to be impleaded as party to this case but they were permitted as intervenors and they were permitted to place their case before this court at the time of final arguments. 19. The main grievance of these intervenors applicants is that they were having a right of way over the disputed land and the trial court on application moved by Naraini Devi and Kali Charan in suit for injunction against Gyan Chand and Vaid Jagdish Narain, in its order dated 23.10.69 directed the present plaintiff-respondent to keep open only 5 ft. land as way for one of the applicants. This grievance of the applicants/intervenors, in view of the aforesaid circumstances, cannot be adjudicated upon in this appeal and the suit which has different controversy involved. 20. Accordingly, this appeal is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. land as way for one of the applicants. This grievance of the applicants/intervenors, in view of the aforesaid circumstances, cannot be adjudicated upon in this appeal and the suit which has different controversy involved. 20. Accordingly, this appeal is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. Dismissal of this appeal will not bar the J.D.A. to resort remedy in accordance with law for construction of roads and development of the colony according to their approved plan in case the suit land comes in the way so as to move the grievances of the inhabitants of the colony.Appeal dismissed. *******