JUDGMENT : 1. This civil first appeal has been filed by the defendants-appellants (hereinafter referred as ‘the defendants’) against the judgment and decree dated 10.02.2021 passed by Additional District Judge No. 3, Jaipur Metropolitan-II (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’), in civil suit No. 3/2019 titled as “Ahsaan Ahamad Ansari & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.” whereby the trial Court decreed the suit filed by the plaintiffs-respondents (hereinafter referred as ‘the plaintiffs’) for declaration, permanent and mandatory injunction in their favour. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration, permanent and mandatory injunction against the defendants in which it was mentioned that plaintiffs are in possession of residential constructed houses, old constructed well and having electricity connection on their land situated in khasra Nos. 5464, 5465, 5466, 5467, 5468 (old khasra No. 6350), total 5 rakba admeasuring 1.15 hectare i.e. 4 bigha 14 biswa in Dhani Sarai Bawdi on Delhi Bypass Road ahead octroi toll. It was also mentioned that around the aforesaid land, 5 feet height boundary wall was constructed and on the said boundary wall, iron angles were affixed and wire fencing was done. The said residential houses and fodder huts are 55 years old, of which the plaintiffs are in possession and they are using and occupying the same. It was further mentioned that prior to the plaintiffs, their owners and title holders were using the property in question from the year 1960 uninterruptedly. The electricity connection in the land in question was in the name of Shri Ganga Singh, the erstwhile owner and title holder. Vide registered sale deed dated 08.03.1983 the property, as mentioned in para No. 3 of the suit, was sold to 9 persons (Abdul Hafiz, Sardar Khan, Gulam Mohammed, Abdul Rashid, Bundu Khan, Mohammed Shami, Allauddin, Nijamuddin and Abdul Latif) and actual physical possession of the sold land and attached movable and immovable property was handed over to them. 3. The plaintiffs also mentioned in their suit that outside the boundary wall in the Northern side, the land of Julfikar Ahmad is situated in which constables of Police Station Amer and R.A.C., 5 th Batallion, used to do physical exercises but since there was no facility of water and tin-shed etc., they used to come in the plaintiffs’ land for the purpose of potable water. In September, 2006, police personnel insisted for laying down permanent line for carrying out the water from plaintiffs’ water boring and to allow them to stay there for the purpose of resting in residential houses which was denied by the plaintiffs, whereupon the police officers threatened the aforesaid purchasers to vacate the suit property, failing which the houses, well and fodder huts were said to be demolished. On that basis, aforesaid 9 purchasers appointed Anwar Ahmad as their Power of Attorney holder, and filed a civil suit for permanent injunction in relation to the disputed land against police department and ors. on 14.09.2006. The trial Court passed interim order in favour of the plaintiffs and restrained the defendants to evict the plaintiffs and to cause any interference in the use and occupation of the land in question. Despite that, the officials of the defendants demolished 25-30 meter long wall from East to West in the plaintiffs’ land and while making a way dropped some garbage, old vehicles etc. in the disputed land from Julfikar’s land. They continued to use unauthorized way for ingress and egress purposes in the disputed land and encroached upon the same. During the pendency of the suit, all the 9 purchasers as per the registered sale deed dated 08.03.1983, executed 9 different Hiba deeds in favour of Anwar Ahmed and handed over the possession of entire 4 bigha and 14 biswa disputed land and all movable and immovable property attest therewith. Since, then Anwar Ahmed is using and occupying the disputed land/properties. In the year 2015, the personnel of defendant No. 5 encroached upon 500 square yard, whereupon Anwar Ahmad requested the police authorities but they did not take any action, whereupon Anwar Ahmad appointed the plaintiff No. 1 as his Power of Attorney Holder and filed a writ petition before this court. During the pendency of the writ petition, Anwar Ahmad executed the Hiba deed in relation to the disputed land in favour of the plaintiffs and handed over the possession to the plaintiffs. It was also mentioned that presently the defendants have encroached upon 800 square yard land and the residential houses constructed thereon. Whenever the plaintiffs go on the disputed land in question, the respondents show their power and position and cause interference in the use and occupation of the land in question. It was also mentioned that presently the defendants have encroached upon 800 square yard land and the residential houses constructed thereon. Whenever the plaintiffs go on the disputed land in question, the respondents show their power and position and cause interference in the use and occupation of the land in question. In the last, it was prayed that the suit filed by the plaintiffs be decreed. 4. Defendants filed a written statement denying the averments made by the plaintiffs. It was categorically mentioned by them that in the year 1992, 500 bigha of land (Khasra Nos. 1 to 76, 120, 6344 to 6353, 6355 to 6361, 6554 to 6555) in village Kishanpura @ Lalwas, Tehsil Amer District Jaipur was allotted to them by JDA. It was also mentioned that the khasra numbers which were mentioned by the plaintiffs in their suit, had already been allotted to police line vide JDA letter No. Jai/D.A. Moraj/91/174 dated 18.01.1992. Pursuant thereto the land was measured, fencing and demarcation was done and possession was handed over by JDA to Rajasthan Police on 20.01.1992. Since then, Rajasthan Police is using and occupying of the land in question. The land in question was initially for honey dew range of the then Maharaja but after dissolution of the empire of Maharaja, when the khatedars of honey dew range did not deposit the taxes, Tehsildar, Amer, while exercising his powers, acquired the land allotted to honey dew range on 19.11.1991 and declared the same as sivaichak land. The JDA allotted the land in question to the defendants as per rules and the defendants are using and occupying the same. The plaintiffs had no legal right in relation to the land in question. In the last, it was prayed that the suit filed by the plaintiffs be dismissed. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed following issues-: 1. Whether land of Khasra No. 5464 to 5468 is under the ownership and the plaintiffs’ have right in relation thereto? 2. Whether obstruction is being caused by the defendants in using the land in question by dropping garbage, old vehicles, useless materials etc. therein and by demolishing the wall towards Julfikar Ali’s land situated in the northern side of the disputed land, an unauthorized way has been constructed on the disputed land for egress and ingress purposes? 3. 2. Whether obstruction is being caused by the defendants in using the land in question by dropping garbage, old vehicles, useless materials etc. therein and by demolishing the wall towards Julfikar Ali’s land situated in the northern side of the disputed land, an unauthorized way has been constructed on the disputed land for egress and ingress purposes? 3. Whether the defendants have encroached over 800 sq. yard land out of disputed land, as shown with yellow and red color in the annexed map and since then they are continuously enlarging the encroachment? 4. Whether the allotment letter No. F.4/JDA/MURA/91/174 dated 18.01.1992 has been issued by JDA and allotment has not been made as per the act and the JDA didn’t take possession of the disputed land, as a result of which the plaintiffs are entitled to get the allotment letter declared as null and void? 5. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get a decree of permanent injunction in their favour to the effect that the defendants shall not cause any interference in the use and occupation of the disputed land and the residential houses, well, hut, electricity house etc. attested therewith nor the defendants would encroach upon the same nor would evict the plaintiffs from the disputed land? 6. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get a decree of mandatory injunction against the defendants to the effect that the defendants should vacate the residential houses by removing old vehicles, garbage, materials etc. at their own expenses from the disputed land and by removing the encroachment from the residential houses in the land as shown in the annexed map? 7. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get a decree of mandatory injunction to the effect that the defendant Nos. 2 and 7 should enter the names of the plaintiffs in the revenue record in relation to the land in question? 8. Whether the land of khasra numbers as shown by the plaintiffs in the plaint was allotted to the defendants by Jaipur Development Authority vide letter No. Jai/D.A. Moraj/91/174 dated 18.01.1992 and khasras of the aforesaid land was obtained by Rajasthan Police on 20.01.1992? 9. Relief. 10. Whether in absence of notice to JDA, the suit filed by the plaintiffs was liable to be dismissed? 6. To prove his case, plaintiffs got examined PW-1 as Raees and got exhibited some documents. 9. Relief. 10. Whether in absence of notice to JDA, the suit filed by the plaintiffs was liable to be dismissed? 6. To prove his case, plaintiffs got examined PW-1 as Raees and got exhibited some documents. To prove their case, defendants got examined Brijendra Singh Bhati as DW-1 and Rajendra Singh Charan as DW-2 and got exhibited some documents. 7. After hearing both the parties, trial Court decreed the suit filed by the plaintiffs. 8. Learned counsel for the defendants submits that the trial Court while decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiffs had committed serious error and trial Court had not appreciated the evidence led by the parties in right perspective. So, judgment and decree dated10.02.2021 passed by the trial Court is required to be set aside. 9. Learned counsel for the defendants further submits that the trial Court had not considered the fact that the land bearing khasra No. 6350 was of honeydew range of the then Maharaja. After dissolution of empire of the Maharaja, in the year 1950, the said land vested in the State of Rajasthan. 10. Learned counsel for the defendants also submits that the khatedar of the honeydew range had not deposited the levy/taxes, so, the then Tehsildar, Amer acquired the land on 19.11.1991 and declared the disputed land as a sivaichak on the same day. After the establishment of the Jaipur Development Authority, disputed land was entered in the name of the Jaipur Development Authority in the revenue record. Jaipur Development Authority had allotted 500 bigha land to Rajasthan Police and 80 bigha land to C.R.P.F. which included disputed land also. 11. Learned counsel for the defendants further submits that Abdul Rasheed had earlier filed a civil suit No. 26/2007 titled as “Abdul Rasheed Meer Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors.”. before the Additional District Judge No. 9, Jaipur Metropolitan, and the said court vide order dated 05.01.2019 dismissed the suit filed by the Abdul Rasheed. So, the plaintiffs are not entitled to file second suit on the same set of facts. 12. Learned counsel for the defendants also submits that plaintiffs failed to prove the title of the disputed land. They had not filed the original patta as well as family settlement regarding disputed land. Witnesses of the defendants by their evidence clearly proved that Jaipur Development Authority in the year 1992 had allotted 500 bigha land (bearing khasra Nos. 12. Learned counsel for the defendants also submits that plaintiffs failed to prove the title of the disputed land. They had not filed the original patta as well as family settlement regarding disputed land. Witnesses of the defendants by their evidence clearly proved that Jaipur Development Authority in the year 1992 had allotted 500 bigha land (bearing khasra Nos. 1 to 76, 120, 6344 to 6353, 6355 to 6361, 6554 to 6555 in village Kishanpura @ Lalwas, Tehsil Amer) to the Rajasthan Police for police line. The said allotment letter was proved by the witnesses DW-1-Brijendra Singh Bhati and DW-2-Rajendra Singh Charan. They had also proved the possession letter. 13. Learned counsel for the defendants further submits that plaintiffs failed to prove the title with regard to disputed land. Disputed land was never in the ownership of the Bahadur Singh. It was entered in the revenue record as Grass Farm or Daftaar Honey Dew Range. It was provided to Bahadur Singh for crop cultivation by ancestral Maharaja. So, Bahadur Singh had no right to transfer the ownership of the disputed land to other persons. 14. Learned counsel for the defendants also submits that the electricity bill exhibited by plaintiffs did not prove the ownership on the disputed land because it did not belong to the disputed land. Defendants also failed to prove the Hiba because dates mentioned in the Hiba did not match the attestation dates. So, the judgment and decree dated 10.02.2021 passed by the trial Court be set aside. 15. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs has opposed the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the defendants and submits that trial Court rightly appreciated the evidence led by the parties. Plaintiffs had proved the documents with regard to disputed land. The patta (Ex-1) was issued in the name of the Bahadur Singh. Legal heirs of the Bahadur Singh executed the Power of Attorney in favour of Kishore Singh. Kishore Singh executed the sale deed dated 08.03.1983 in favour of the 9 persons (Abdul Hafiz, Sardar Khan, Gulam Mohammed, Abdul Rashid, Bundu Khan, Mohammed Shami, Allauddin, Nijamuddin and Abdul Latif) and these 9 persons made hiba in favour of the Anwar Ahmad. Plaintiffs also filed a copy of electricity bill of the disputed property. 16. Kishore Singh executed the sale deed dated 08.03.1983 in favour of the 9 persons (Abdul Hafiz, Sardar Khan, Gulam Mohammed, Abdul Rashid, Bundu Khan, Mohammed Shami, Allauddin, Nijamuddin and Abdul Latif) and these 9 persons made hiba in favour of the Anwar Ahmad. Plaintiffs also filed a copy of electricity bill of the disputed property. 16. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs also submits that the defendants failed to prove that the disputed land was sivaichak land and acquired by the Tehsildar, Amer. There was no document which could show that disputed land was entered in the revenue record as a sivaichak. As per the documents, disputed land was honeydew range of the Maharaja. Defendants witnesses DW-1- Brijendra Singh Bhati and DW-2-Rajendra Singh Charan in their evidence clearly stated that they did not know as to when the possession was handed over to the Rajasthan Police. They failed to prove the documents exhibited by them. Possession letter did not bear the dispatch number and dispatch date. In their cross- examination they gave evasive reply. None adduced the evidence on behalf of the Jaipur Development Authority. No order regarding acquisition and declaring the disputed land as a sivaichak land by Tehsildar, Amer was exhibited. So, the trial Court rightly decreed the suit filed by the plaintiffs. So, the appeal filed by the defendants being bereft of merit, is liable to be dismissed. 17. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the defendants as well as learned counsel for the plaintiffs. 18. It is an admitted position that disputed land belonged to Daftaar Hendurange. Plaintiffs by way of evidence proved the documents i.e. Patta (Ex-1) which was issued in the name of Bahadur Singh. Legal heirs of the Bahadur Singh executed the Power of Attorney in favour of Kishore Singh. On account of said Power of Attorney, Kishore Singh executed the sale deed dated 08.03.1983 in favour of 9 persons (Abdul Hafiz, Sardar Khan, Gulam Mohammed, Abdul Rashid, Bundu Khan, Mohammed Shami, Allauddin, Nijamuddin and Abdul Latif). Those 9 persons made Hiba in favour of Anwar Ahmad. 19. Contention of the defendants that on account of non-payment of the levy/taxes, the then Tehsildar, Amer acquired the land on 19.11.1991 and declared the disputed land as a sivaichak on the same day. Those 9 persons made Hiba in favour of Anwar Ahmad. 19. Contention of the defendants that on account of non-payment of the levy/taxes, the then Tehsildar, Amer acquired the land on 19.11.1991 and declared the disputed land as a sivaichak on the same day. Evidence led by the defendants’ witnesses Brijendra Singh Bhati and Rajendra Singh Charan did not inspire any confidence because they failed to prove documents exhibited by them. They also gave evasive reply in casual manner. 20. Contention of the defendants that disputed land was allotted by the JDA to Rajasthan Police was not proved because letter with regard to handing over the possession was not proved by the defendants. 21. Jaipur Development Authority had not adduced the evidence with regard to handing over the possession to the Rajasthan Police. Tehsildar, Amer, during the trial failed to prove the acquisition proceeding as well as declaring the disputed land as sivaichak. 22. Plaintiffs in their evidence clearly proved the chain of documents with regard to their possession and title. So, in my considered opinion, the trial Court rightly decreed the suit filed by the plaintiffs. So, the present appeal filed by the defendants being bereft of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. 23. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.