JUDGMENT 1. - This civil first appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2007 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Udaipur in Civil Original Suit No.20/06 whereby the learned Judge has decreed the suit filed for permanent injunction and declaration in favour of the respondent-plaintiff. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-respondent has filed a suit for permanent injunction and declaration on the ground that Plot No. 1 / 264 allotted by the Rajasthan Housing Board, Udaipur and in back side of this plot, one strip of land measuring 600 feet is there. The plaintiff applied for allotment of strip of land and he was informed by the Rajasthan Housing Board, Udaipur that said land already stands transferred to Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur. The plaintiff filed an application for allotment of the said strip of land to him before the UIT, Udaipur. It is averred that UIT, Udaipur accepted the application for allotment of strip of land filed by the respondent-plaintiff and demanded Rs. 67,000/-. The plaintiff-respondent deposited the said amount. It is further averred that the UIT, Udaipur denied to execute the lease deed. Further, it is pleaded that inspite of notice given by the plaintiff, lease deed of strip of land has not been executed in favour of the plaintiff and his right to get the strip of land has been denied. Lastly , he prayed for decree of permanent injunction and declaration and further sought direction against the defendant/ appellant to execute the lease deed. 3. The defendant-appellant filed written statement and denied the averments contained in the plaint but admitted the fact that plaintiff applied for allotment of strip of land and proposed amount has been deposited by him. It is submitted that the said allotment has been cancelled in public interest and prayed for dismissal of the suit. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court has framed as many as four issues which are as under; " 1- vk;k oknh fookfnr Hkw&iV~Vh ds laca/k esa izfroknh ls yht MhM fu"ikfnr dj mlsa iathd`r djokus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ --------oknh 2- vk;k oknh pkgh x;h LFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ ------oknh 3- vk;k izfroknh dks tufgr esa oknh dks fookfnr vkoafVr Hkw&iV~Vh ds vkosnu dks fujLr djus dk vf/kdkj gS\ -------- izfroknh 4- vuqrks"k\ " 5. The plaintiff-respondent Rajkumar examined himself as PW-1 and exhibited several documents in support of his case. The defendant-appellant has produced Saiyed Sahadat Ali, DW-1 in oral evidence who is working as Lower Division Clerk in Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur. 6. After hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 30.11.2007 has decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff-respondent filed for permanent injunction and declaration. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2007 passed by the learned trial Court, the appellant has preferred this first appeal. 7. The main point for consideration for deciding this first appeal is whether the UIT, Udaipur was justified in cancelling the allotment order of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff-respondent after execution of the allotment and handing over of the possession? 8. The learned trial Court decided issue No.l and 3 jointly because they were closely connected to each other. For the sake of convenience, I am also considering issue No.l and 3 jointly.Issue No. 1 and 3:- The issue No.l is with regard to the fact that whether the plaintiff is entitled to get lease deed executed by defendant and to get it registered in his name and burden of proof is on the plaintiff and issue No.3 is with regard to the fact that whether the defendant has a right to cancel the application for allotment of strip land in public interest? 9. The learned trial Court decided issue No.l in favour of the plaintiff-respondent and issue No.3 against the defendant-appellant. 10. Counsel for the appellant contended that UIT, Udaipur has a right to cancel the allotment of strip land in public interest. He further contended that the UIT, Udaipur in its meeting dated 20.10.2005 decided not to allot the strip of land to the plaintiff-respondent in public interest. It is also contended by the appellant that the UIT, Udaipur in its meeting decided to develop this strip of land for the commercial purpose. DW-1 Saiyed Sahadat Ali, a witness examined by the defendant-appellant also disclosed this fact in his affidavit produced in the trial Court whereas in the written statement, no such fact has been pleaded by the appellant-defendant that the UIT, Udaipur decided to develop the strip of land for the commercial purpose. DW-1 Saiyed Sahadat Ali, a witness examined by the defendant-appellant also disclosed this fact in his affidavit produced in the trial Court whereas in the written statement, no such fact has been pleaded by the appellant-defendant that the UIT, Udaipur decided to develop the strip of land for the commercial purpose. Thus, the contention raised by the counsel for the appellant is entirely a new fact and the evidence adduced by the defendant in the statement of Saiyed Sahadat Ali, is also an evidence regarding the fact which has not been pleaded by the appellant-defendant in his written statement. DW-1 in examination-in-chief deposed that the allotment letter was issued on 17.02.2005 and the possession of the land was handed over to the plaintiff-respondent on 22.02.2005, when the entire amount of the lease deed to the tune of Rs. 67,000/- was deposited by him. The contention of the counsel for the appellant that in public interest, the UIT, Udaipur can reverse its earlier decision and take any decision, cannot be accepted. 11. Counsel for the appellant has relied upon two judgments of this Court in Madarsa Taiyabiya Society, Udaipur v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., reported in 2001 DNJ (Raj.) 426 , and Ratan Lal Acharya v. Smt. Parwati Bai & Ors. reported in 2000 DNJ (Raj.) 514. 12. I have perused the judgments. The facts of the above referred cases are entirely different from the present one. In the above two cited judgments, the matter was regarding issuance of sale patta of public road, particulary in the case of Madarsa Taiyabiah Society, Udaipur, by selling a strip of land, the public road was narrowed and it bacame prone to accident and in Ratan Lai Acharya's case, the matter was regarding to public way. In the present matter, it is not a case of public way or any public road. Further, in the present case, the fact with regard to public interest has not been pleaded in the written statement as the allotment order was issued in favour of the plaintiff-respondent and at the same time, possession was also handed over. The learned trial Court considered the evidence of both the parties in detail while deciding issue No.l and 3. Further, in the present case, the fact with regard to public interest has not been pleaded in the written statement as the allotment order was issued in favour of the plaintiff-respondent and at the same time, possession was also handed over. The learned trial Court considered the evidence of both the parties in detail while deciding issue No.l and 3. The learned trial Court also observed in its judgment that the defendant has not disclosed this fact in clear terms that what was the public interest in which the strip of land was cancelled in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. Although the witness examined by the defendant-appellant has disclosed this fact that for the commercial purposes, this land was being used but there was no specific pleading in the written statement to this effect. The learned trial Court also took into consideration other facts and circumstances of the case as well as the oral and documentary evidence produced by both the parties. Thus, I find no reason to disagree with the findings of learned trial Court regarding issue No.l and 3. 13. Issue No. 2. In view of the decisions of issue No.l and 3, learned trial Court decided issue No.2 in favour of the plaintiff-respondent and the same is also affirmed. 14. In view of the aforesaid discussion made hereinabove, the appeal filed by the defendant-appellant being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******