ORDER : Jainendra Kumar Ranka, J. 1. The appellant-defendant State has preferred this second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 30.5.2012 passed by Addl. District Judge, Khetri, whereby the learned first appellate court has affirmed the judgment and decree dated 29.11.2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) Khetri. 2. The facts, in brief, relevant for disposal of this second appeal are that plaintiff Chhajuram filed a civil suit against the defendants State for grant of perpetual injunction in respect of his shop in which he claims to have been running a porter house/eatery for the last 35 years and on the basis of his old possession he claims to have been given a patta issued by the Collector, Khetri. It is claimed in the plaint that treating his possession on the disputed land/shop as unauthorised/encroacher, vide notice dated 7.11.2005 defendant no. 4 initiated proceedings u/s 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. In response to the notice the plaintiff submitted documents to prove his right and requested to cancel the notice, but it is claimed in the plaint that under some political pressure, defendant no. 4 issued order of dispossession of the plaintiff, against which the plaintiff filed appeal whereupon the order of dispossession was remanded back to respondent no. 4 with directions for taking measurements of the site, which is still pending. The plaintiff claims that even after his repeated requests, respondent no. 4 is not getting the site measured. Plaintiff claimed in the plaint that he has not encroached upon any land instead after leaving some area of the land of which he is having patta, he has constructed the shop and the defendants are illegally bent upon to demolish his shop. Therefore, he sought injunction as aforesaid restraining the defendants from demolishing his shop. 3. Defendants in their written statement denied many of the averments made in the plaint and claimed that the front portion of the shop has illegally been extended encroaching upon the road limit on the gair mumkin land and claimed that due to his encroachment, construction of public drain ¼ukyh½ on the roadside has been obstructed and has come to a stand still. It is also claimed that after giving proper notice the dispossession order was issued, which can in no way be called to be illegal and also claimed that the plaintiff has filed the suit on the basis of wrong facts, and ultimately prayed for dismissal of the suit. 4. On the basis of pleadings of rival parties, learned trial court framed seven issues including the issue of relief. In support of his claim, the plaintiff filed affidavits of three witnesses, namely PW-1 Chhajuram, PW-2 Babulal and PW-3 Brijlal. Chhajuram and Brijlal were cross examined by the counsel for defendants. Plaintiff exhibited five documents to prove his possession/ownership on the land/shop in question. Defendants in support of their case produced witness DW-1 Mehtab Singh and filed affidavit of Ramchandra who were cross examined by counsel for the plaintiff, however, the defendants did not exhibit any document. 5. After hearing counsel for the parties, the learned trial court decided the main issue being issue no. 1 in favour of the plaintiff, and all other issues were decided against the defendants, and the defendants were found liable to be restrained by grant of permanent injunction. Accordingly, the suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff. 6. The appeal preferred by the defendants also stood dismissed by the first appellate court. Hence this second appeal by the defendants. 7. Contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/defendants, inter-alia, is that the courts below have seriously erred in passing the impugned judgment & decrees in not considering the fact that without declaration of title no person is entitled for a decree of permanent injunction, as such the judgment and decrees passed by the courts below are liable to be quashed and set aside. It was alternatively contended that in case there is any encroachment, then the appellant may take appropriate action in accordance with law to acquire the instant land. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the impugned judgment and decrees as also the record of the case, in my view, the courts below have not committed any illegality or perversity in passing the impugned judgment and decrees and the appellate court has rightly concurred with the finding of the trial court. Since the judgment and decrees impugned are well reasoned one, no interference by this court in second appeal is called for. 9. Since the judgment and decrees impugned are well reasoned one, no interference by this court in second appeal is called for. 9. However, if still it is noticed that the shops fall in actual road and there is encroachment, then the government is free to initiate further action in accordance with law. 10. Resultantly, the present second appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed with aforesaid directions.