JUDGMENT Dinesh Mehta, J. - By way of the present writ petition, petitioner has challenged order dated 10.02.2022, passed by Additional District Judge, Phalodi, District Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as to the 'Appellate Court'), whereby petitioner's appeal against the order dated 28.01.2022, passed by Civil Judge, Phalodi (hereinafter referred to as "the Trial Court") has been rejected. 2. The facts germane for the present purposes are that the plaintiff (petitioner herein) had filed a suit for permanent injunction, along with an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2, asserting that the petitioner is having settled possession over the land mentioned in Para No. 1 of the plaint situated in Khasra No. 694 of village Bawdi Kala. 3. It was argued on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner has raised construction over the land only after obtaining no objection certificate from Gram Panchayat; petitioner is having an electricity connection over the subject property and that the notice issued by the Gram Panchayat for removing the encroachment is not valid as the resolution allegedly adopted bears forged signature of Manohar Singh. 4. The Gram Panchayat disputed the facts and opposed the suit and Temporary Injunction application by filing a reply. The said application for Temporary Injunction was rejected by the trial Court with observation that the petitioner was having efficacious remedy available under Section 61 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 and that the electricity connection that has been relied upon by the petitioner is in the name of his brother Moti Singh and thus prima facie the petitioner has failed to make out a case against the respondent. 5. Petitioner's plaint/application for Temporary Injunction also contained arguments regarding irreparable injury in relation whereof, while rejecting the Temporary Injunction application vide order dated 28.01.2022, the Trial Court observed that the plaintiff has in fact trespassed over the public land, which is otherwise required for over-all development of the village. 6. The petitioner thereafter preferred an appeal against order of the trial Court under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of Code of Civil Procedure, which too was dismissed by the learned Appellate Court vide its order dated 10.02.2022. 7. Various submissions were made before the Appellate Court including filing of FIR by the rival parties. It was also argued before the Appellate Court that a person cannot be evicted without following due process of law. The Appellate Court, however, rejected the appeal. 7. Various submissions were made before the Appellate Court including filing of FIR by the rival parties. It was also argued before the Appellate Court that a person cannot be evicted without following due process of law. The Appellate Court, however, rejected the appeal. It is to be noted that trial Court as well as the Appellate Court have observed while rejecting the request of temporary injunction that the petitioner has only sought an injunction without seeking a declaration. 8. Mr. Ballani, learned counsel for the petitioner, challenging the order passed by the Courts below argued that the petitioner is indisputably having long possession over the subject land and he is residing in the house constructed upon such land. 9. Learned counsel relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in case of Rame Gowda (D) by Lrs. v. M. Varadappa Naidu (D) by Lrs. and Ors. (2004) 1 SCC 769 . 10. While submitting that a person cannot be dispossessed without adopting due process of law, learned counsel argued that the resolution which purportedly has been adopted by the Gram Panchayat, was irregular, inasmuch as, one Panch-Manohar Singh, whose signature has been shown on the resolution, has himself lodged an FIR against the Sarpanch and other ward members alleging that the signature on said resolution has been forged and the resolution is illegal. 11. On the basis of such facts, learned counsel argued that the resolution, which has led to issuance of notice under Rule 165 of Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules of 1996") itself was improper. It was also contended that the proceedings for dispossessing the petitioner being adopted by the respondent-Gram Panchayat are wholly illegal and petitioner cannot be dispossessed and thus, petitioner has a strong prima facie case in his favour. 12. Mr. Deepak Vyas, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent - Gram Panchayat, argued that action of Gram Panchayat was perfectly legal and valid. 13. While maintaining that the resolution is valid, he argued that its correctness or veracity is subject matter of evidence and unless such resolution is held irregular, a presumption should be drawn that the resolution has been properly adopted. 14. Mr. Vyas argued that the petitioner has encroached upon huge chunk of land (about 21,000 sq.ft.), and this area is not even eligible for regularisation. 14. Mr. Vyas argued that the petitioner has encroached upon huge chunk of land (about 21,000 sq.ft.), and this area is not even eligible for regularisation. It was also asserted that the petitioner has encroached upon public land despite the fact that he is having another land/residential house in the village and thus petitioner is not entitled for even allotment of land or regularisation of his possession. 15. While highlighting that the petitioner is a land encroacher, learned counsel argued that no indulgence deserves to be granted to the petitioner and both the Courts below have rightly rejected petitioner's application for grant of temporary injunction. 16. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material on record, this Court is of the firm view that petitioner is a rank land grabber having encroached upon huge public land of about 21,000 sq.ft. The Gram Panchayat has issued notice to the petitioner under Rule 165 of the Rules of 1996 and without filing any reply/representation to such notice, the petitioner has rushed to the Civil Court seeking injunction. 17. Maybe, the allegation of the petitioner that the signature of Manohar Singh, is not proper or forged is true, however, in the opinion of this Court, the same is subservient to evidence and final finding which is to be recorded by the trial Court. 18. On such ground alone the resolution adopted by the Gram Panchayat cannot be held invalid and the petitioner, who himself has flouted the law, cannot be given protection of law. 19. So far as the judgment relied upon by Mr. Ballani in the case of Rame Gowda (supra), is concerned, in the facts of the said case, it was a private individual, who wanted to dispossess the plaintiff by force of law. In such circumstances, Hon'ble the Supreme Court had observed that even true owner cannot take law in his hands and dispossess the purported encroacher. As against this, the action under challenge is being taken by Gram Panchayat and that too in exercise of its statutory powers available under Rule 165 of the Rules of 1996. 20. In the opinion of this Court, the Gram Panchayat, a duly elected body having statutory powers can, rather should, take action against encroachers. As against this, the action under challenge is being taken by Gram Panchayat and that too in exercise of its statutory powers available under Rule 165 of the Rules of 1996. 20. In the opinion of this Court, the Gram Panchayat, a duly elected body having statutory powers can, rather should, take action against encroachers. Such action should not normally be interfered with unless there is a glaring statutory non-compliance or violation or the citizen has a valid title over the land. 21. On the basis of such trivial irregularity as alleged by the petitioner, the action of the Gram Panchayat, cannot be held illegal so as to grant indulgence to unscrupulous encroachers. 22. It is high time when the Courts of law come heavily against such encroachers. Instead of granting undue and unwarranted indulgence to them, the Court should permit the law to take its own course. 23. As an upshot of foregoing discussion, the writ petition is hereby dismissed. 24. The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.