Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 567 (RAJ)

Lrs of Bhabhuta Ram v. Executive Engineer

2020-07-08

ARUN BHANSALI

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. This second appeal is directed against judgment and decree dated 30.01.2014 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sri Vijaynagar, District Sri Ganganagar ('the trial court') and judgment and decree dated 17.07.2019 passed by Additional District Judge, Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar ('the appellate court'), whereby, the suit and appeal filed by the appellants have been dismissed, respectively. 2. A suit was filed by one Bhabhuta Ram in 2000, inter alia, seeking permanent injunction against the Municipality, Sri Vijaynagar with the averments that he was in possession of Plot No. 50, which was regularized in his favour and besides the said plot he was in possession of Plot Nos. 49, 59 and 60 and a land ad measuring 12x80 ft. between the Plot Nos. 49 & 50 for over 30 years. The respondent-municipality was seeking to dispossess the plaintiff despite the fact that he was entitled for regularization of his possession and therefore a permanent injunction be issued against the defendants not to dispossess him. 3. The suit was resisted by the Municipality, inter alia, with the submissions that the claim regarding old possession by the plaintiff is factually incorrect and that the attempts were being made to take possession of the land belonging to the Municipality. Further submissions were made that in so far as seeking regularization of illegal possession is concerned, once a plot of land i.e. Plot No. 50, which was in illegal possession of the plaintiff, already stands regularized in his favour, he is not entitled for seeking regularization of illegal possession on other pieces of land and prayed that the suit be dismissed. 4. The trial court framed as many as six issues and after evidence was led by the parties came to the conclusion that the claim of the plaintiff being in possession over the land in question for over 30 years was baseless. Further, the plea pertaining to entitlement for regularization was also negated and the suit was dismissed. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants filed first appeal before the appellate court. 6. The appellate court after hearing the parties upheld the findings recorded by the trial court mainly in relation to the claim of possession over the land in question and consequently dismissed the appeal. 7. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants filed first appeal before the appellate court. 6. The appellate court after hearing the parties upheld the findings recorded by the trial court mainly in relation to the claim of possession over the land in question and consequently dismissed the appeal. 7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that both the courts below were not justified in dismissing the suit and appeal, inasmuch as, during pendency of the suit an application under Order VII, Rule 14 CPC was filed for placing on record certain documents, which application was wrongly rejected and during pendency of the appeal when the said documents were sought to be brought on record under Order XLI, Rule 27 CPC, the said application was also wrongly rejected based on the order passed by the trial court, which was not justified. 8. In the present appeal also an application under Order XLI, Rule 27 CPC has been filed attempting to place on record the same documents again. 9. Further submissions have been made that once the appellant is in possession of the land in question, he is entitled for seeking regularization and, therefore, the courts below were not justified in rejecting the suit for injunction/appeal filed by the appellant and, therefore, the appeal deserves to be admitted. 10. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the material available on record. 11. In so far as the rejection of applications under Order VII, Rule 14 CPC by the trial court and Order XLI, Rule 27 CPC by the appellate court are concerned, the documents sought to be produced by the appellant, for which, again an attempt has been made in the present appeal by filing an application under Order XLI, Rule 27 CPC, pertains to a survey said to have been conducted in the year 2004 by the Municipality showing possession of sons of original plaintiff. The suit was filed in the year 2000 by Bhabhuta Ram and in the year 2004 the possession has been indicated that of sons of Bhabhuta Ram. The suit was filed in the year 2000 by Bhabhuta Ram and in the year 2004 the possession has been indicated that of sons of Bhabhuta Ram. Once the suit was filed by Bhabhuta Ram by claiming possession in the year 2000 that also for over 30 years, filing of documents to indicate possession of sons of Bhabhuta Ram in the year 2004 were in no manner relevant for the just decision of the suit wherein the claim was made that on the date of filing of the suit, the plaintiff Bhabhuta Ram was in possession for over 30 years and, as such, the rejection of applications under Order VII, Rule 14 CPC and Order XLI, Rule 27 CPC by both the courts below cannot be faulted. The application filed by the appellant under Order XLI, Rule 27 CPC in the present appeal also has no substance for the same reasons and, therefore, the same also stands rejected. 12. Both the courts below have concurrently recorded a finding of fact that the appellant has failed to establish possession over the land in question for over 30 years. Learned counsel for the appellant has failed to point out any perversity in the findings recorded by both the courts below so as to give rise to a substantial question of law. 13. In so far as the claim made based on alleged right to get regularization of possession is concerned, the stand of the Municipality has been very specific that once illegal possession on a plot of the land has already been regularized in favour of the plaintiff, he is not entitled to get regularization of his illegal possession, if any, over other pieces of land by trespassing and/or taking possession of the more municipal land. The said stand of the Municipality appears to be justified, inasmuch as, it is an admitted position on record that illegal possession of the plaintiff on Plot No. 50 has already been regularized. 14. In case a person, whose illegal possession on a piece of land has already been regularized, is permitted to take possession of land in & around the said plot and thereafter seek regularization, the same can only lead to chaos, which cannot be permitted. 15. In view of the above, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the appeal. 16. Consequently, the second appeal is dismissed.