JUDGMENT : G. S. AHLUWALIA, J. This second appeal under Section 100 of CPC has been filed against judgment and decree dated 30.04.2008 passed by First Additional District Judge, District Shivpuri in Regular Civil Appeal No. 9A/2008, as well as judgment and decree dated 31.08.2007 passed by Civil Judge, Class I, District Shivpuri in Civil Suit No. 9A/2007. 2. Appellant is the plaintiff who has lost his case from both the Courts below. 3. The facts necessary for disposal of present appeal, in short, are that plaintiff/appellant filed a suit for permanent injunction on the allegation that his mother was the owner of House No. 108/2 situated in Shivpuri, and after her death, plaintiff has become the owner and is making payment of property tax. A case for mutation of name of plaintiff, after the death of his mother, is pending with the defendant for the last several years. Smt. Mishribai, mother of plaintiff, had executed a Will in favour of plaintiff, and on the basis of said Will also, plaintiff is the sole owner and in possession of property in dispute. On the northern side of House No. 108/2, there is a road which merges with Agra-Mumbai National Highway. Mother of plaintiff had given an application for construction of 12 shops towards the northern side of House No. 108/2 along with a proposed map, and by order dated 14.04.1980, building permission was granted. The building permission got renewed from time to time. On the northern side of the house, 7 shops have already been constructed, and construction of remaining 5 shops up to lantern level has already been completed, but plaintiff is not in a position to complete the construction of remaining 5 shops because, just adjoining to the shops of plaintiff, temporary stalls of certain persons have been kept. Plaintiff had made application to defendant on multiple occasions for removal of stalls, but the same was not done, and accordingly, plaintiff is unable to raise construction of his remaining 5 shops. The land, which is on the northern side of building of House No. 108/2, belongs to State of M.P., Public Works Department. Land was required for construction of road, and accordingly, Executive Engineer, P.W.D., by his letter dated 18.07.1955, had written to defendant that permission to construct 20 ft. The land, which is on the northern side of building of House No. 108/2, belongs to State of M.P., Public Works Department. Land was required for construction of road, and accordingly, Executive Engineer, P.W.D., by his letter dated 18.07.1955, had written to defendant that permission to construct 20 ft. wide road can be granted on the ground that, adjoining to the road, no construction, either temporary or permanent, would be raised. Only after aforesaid condition was accepted by defendant, 5440 sq. ft. of land was allotted to defendant by order dated 23.01.1958, and accordingly, road was constructed, which merges with Agra-Mumbai National Highway. It was further pleaded that land, which is adjoining to the land in question, was a part of Kothi No. 14, and defendant has no right or title to lease out said land, which belongs to the State Government. P.W.D. and Collector, Shivpuri had also informed the defendant on multiple occasions to remove the stalls, but since employees of defendant are hand in glove with owners of stalls, they are not removing the stalls. Even writ petition filed by owners of stalls had also been dismissed by the High Court, but still defendant is not removing their encroachment. It was further pleaded that defendant wants to construct shops on the same land on which stalls have been kept, and wants to lease it out. Because of stalls, road has become narrow and is creating public nuisance. Even P.W.D. had also directed defendant to remove the stalls, and even the Court of S.D.M. had also held that it amounts to public nuisance, but still defendant is not interested in removing the stalls. It was further pleaded that defendant is also going to construct Pacca shops on the land situated towards northern side of the place where 5 shops are to be constructed by plaintiff. If defendant is allowed to construct Pacca shops, then approach road to the southern side of shops already constructed by plaintiff would be blocked, and plaintiff would not be in a position to complete the construction of remaining 5 shops. It was pleaded that land in dispute does not belong to defendant. On 25.08.2005, employees of defendant came to the spot and carried out the inspection, then plaintiff came to know that defendant is going to construct shops. It was pleaded that land in dispute does not belong to defendant. On 25.08.2005, employees of defendant came to the spot and carried out the inspection, then plaintiff came to know that defendant is going to construct shops. Accordingly, suit was filed for permanent injunction, thereby restraining the defendant from construction of shops over the land in dispute. 4. Defendant filed its written statement and admitted that Smt. Mishribai was the owner of House No. 108/2. It was pleaded that plaintiff has not produced the death certificate of Mishribai, therefore, his name has not been recorded in revenue records. The tax is being deposited in the name of Mishribai. It was further pleaded that plaintiff has not obtained a declaration of his title on the basis of Will. It was pleaded that land, which is on the northern side of House No. 108/2, belongs to defendant. Initially, lease was given by Nazul Department, and thereafter, it came within the jurisdiction of Municipal Council. Land in dispute belongs to the ownership of defendant, and thereafter, road going from Gandhi Chowk to A.B. Road is situated. Stalls were kept in the year 1971 by Nazul Department, and it was claimed that plaintiff had obtained the building permission on incorrect facts. It was denied that after constructing 7 shops, plaintiff has raised construction of 5 shops up to lantern level. It was claimed that earlier, lease was given to stall owners by the Nazul Department, and since property is situated within the territorial jurisdiction of Municipal Council, therefore, now the land in dispute is in the ownership of Municipal Council. Municipal Council has every right to raise any sort of construction on the land in dispute. No direction has been given either by the High Court or any other Court to remove the stalls. It was denied that in case if shops are constructed by defendant, then road would get narrowed down. It was pleaded that on the basis of lease granted by Nazul Department in the year 1971, defendant is constructing shops which are proposed to be given to owners of stalls. Main entry gate of house of plaintiff is on the western side of building, which is being used by plaintiff from years ago. It was pleaded that on the basis of lease granted by Nazul Department in the year 1971, defendant is constructing shops which are proposed to be given to owners of stalls. Main entry gate of house of plaintiff is on the western side of building, which is being used by plaintiff from years ago. In nutshell, it was the case of defendant that earlier, in the year 1971, Nazul Department had given lease to the stall owners, and after the land came within the territorial jurisdiction of Municipal Council, Municipal Council has become owner of the said land, and only on the basis of lease which was earlier given by Nazul Department to stall owners, Municipal Council is intending to raise construction to hand over the shops to the stall owners. 5. The Trial Court, after framing issues and recording evidence, dismissed the suit. 6. Being aggrieved by judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, appellant/plaintiff preferred an appeal, which too has been dismissed by the Appellate Court. 7. Challenging the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below, it is submitted by counsel for appellant that defendant is trying to raise construction over the land forming part of the road. On account of construction of shops, road will get narrowed down, and proposed following substantial questions of law: "(i) Whether, the both the courts below has failed to appoint court commissioner for confirming the identity of the disputed land. (ii) Whether, shops of plaintiff, constructed after permission for opening in the northern side, then plaintiff has right to ask injunction against construction infront of his shops. (iii) Whether, inspite finding of appellate court in para 7 that infront of plaintiff's shops, road is situated, is enough for restraining to defendant for raising construction in the light of order passed by this Hon'ble court in W.P. no. 2459/02. (iv) Whether, a citizen has inherent right of access towards road and the access can not be blocked. (v) Whether, the land in front of plaintiff shops is that of PWD Nazul and the Municipality has no right title over the same. (vi) Whether, inspite of PWD having written of Municipality, not to construct on their land could Municipality had right to restore to construct shop on Government land by blocking the frontage of shops of plaintiff. (v) Whether, the land in front of plaintiff shops is that of PWD Nazul and the Municipality has no right title over the same. (vi) Whether, inspite of PWD having written of Municipality, not to construct on their land could Municipality had right to restore to construct shop on Government land by blocking the frontage of shops of plaintiff. (vii) Whether, there was any question of easement by presumption, when it was right of user by way of necessity. (viii) Any other substantial questions of law which this Hon'ble Court deems fit also be formulated." 8. Heard learned counsel for appellant. 9. In order to appreciate the evidence of plaintiff, it is necessary to consider the plaint averments. 10. Plaintiff has filed plaint map along with plaint showing location of 7 shops, which has already been constructed by plaintiff, and 5 shops, which are in semi-construction condition, as well as place over which defendant is going to raise construction and the position of road. From the plaint map, it is clear that not a single inch of road is being encroached upon or is being utilized by the defendant for raising construction of shops or where the stalls have been installed. The disputed property is shown in green colour. 11. It is the case of defendant that stalls are in existence since year 1971 on the basis of lease given by Nazul Department. 12. If the contention of appellant that by construction of shops on the land in dispute, which is marked in green colour in the plaint map, the road would get narrowed down, is considered, then it is clear that shops Nos. 6 and 7 raised by plaintiff would also cause the same hindrance. It is not the case of plaintiff that area marked with green colour is in the ownership of plaintiff. Said property belongs to defendant. 13. As already pointed out, not a single inch of road, which merges with Agra-Mumbai National Highway, is being encroached upon or is being utilized by defendant for construction of stalls. 14. Plaintiff had not filed the suit for enforcement of his easementary rights. He is not the owner of land over which defendant has proposed to construct shops and is marked with green ink in the plaint map. 14. Plaintiff had not filed the suit for enforcement of his easementary rights. He is not the owner of land over which defendant has proposed to construct shops and is marked with green ink in the plaint map. In absence of any ownership over the said land, plaintiff cannot seek injunction against defendant unless and until he establishes his right of easement. 15. Although all the time, counsel for appellant was trying to submit that shops, which are under proposal by defendant, will be on the footpath, but in spite of repeated request by this Court, counsel for appellant could not point out any document to show that land adjoining to road, which merges with Agra-Mumbai National Highway, has any footpath. Even if the contention of counsel for appellant that the land, on which shops are being proposed by defendant, is footpath, then it is clear that he himself has constructed shops Nos. 6 and 7 on the place which would have been a footpath. 16. So far as the argument of counsel for appellant that construction of shop would create public nuisance is concerned, no leave from the Court under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC was ever taken by appellant. 17. Furthermore, persons who are running their shops and stalls have not been made party to the suit. It was submitted by counsel for appellant that since those persons are the licensees of defendant, therefore, they are not necessary party. 18. Aforesaid submission made by counsel for appellant cannot be accepted because if the suit filed by appellant is decreed then sufferers would be stall owners and they have a right to defend their right to run their shops. No one can be deprived of their right of livelihood, as enshrined under Article 19 of Constitution of India, without giving any opportunity of hearing. 19. Furthermore, it is clear from order dated 30.09.1994 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 41/1985 filed by Municipal Council, Shivpuri against State of M.P. (Exhibit D/14), it was held that Nazul Officer shall not interfere with the right of the Council or the person claiming shelter under Section 248 of M.P.L.R. Code. 19. Furthermore, it is clear from order dated 30.09.1994 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 41/1985 filed by Municipal Council, Shivpuri against State of M.P. (Exhibit D/14), it was held that Nazul Officer shall not interfere with the right of the Council or the person claiming shelter under Section 248 of M.P.L.R. Code. In case there is any other statutory provision and in case there is any dispute between the Council and the Government, and the same has been resolved then the authority in whom the land vests would be competent to take action in accordance with law. Therefore, it is clear that question of ownership over the land in dispute was put to rest by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by order dated 30.09.1994 passed in W.P. No. 41/1985 (Exhibit D-14). 20. So far as the contention made by counsel for appellant that the High Court, by order dated 16.10.2006, passed in W.P. No. 2459/2002, had dismissed the writ petition filed by stall owners is concerned, this Court is of considered opinion that said order will not take the case of appellant any further. Order dated 16.10.2006 passed in W.P. No. 2459/2002 is Exhibit P- 29. It appears that petition was filed by stall owners against Nazul Officer alleging that Nazul Officer has threatened them to remove their possession from the land vested in the Municipality on which they are doing their business. Petition was disposed of with a direction that petitioners are free to approach the Municipality for allotment of alternative place for carrying on their business in accordance with law and if petitioners move an appropriate application to the Municipality then Municipality shall consider the same in accordance with law and allot the place if available with them but the Municipality shall not allot any land or place to the petitioners which is on the Public Road or on Footpath. 21. As already pointed out, land in dispute shown in green colour does not encroach upon the road which merges with Agra-Mumbai National Highway. Plaintiff has also failed to prove that land which is being used by Municipal Council for construction of shops is footpath. 22. No other argument has been advanced by counsel for appellant. 23. 21. As already pointed out, land in dispute shown in green colour does not encroach upon the road which merges with Agra-Mumbai National Highway. Plaintiff has also failed to prove that land which is being used by Municipal Council for construction of shops is footpath. 22. No other argument has been advanced by counsel for appellant. 23. Both the Courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact, and this Court has also considered the arguments raised by counsel for appellant during the course of arguments independently. 24. As no substantial question of law arises in the present appeal, accordingly, judgment and decree dated 30.04.2008 passed by First Additional District Judge, District Shivpuri in Regular Civil Appeal No. 9A/2008, as well as judgment and decree dated 31.08.2007 passed by Civil Judge, Class I, District Shivpuri in Civil Suit No. 9A/2007, are hereby affirmed. 25. Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.