Mukut Bihari vs State Through Collector Bundi And ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 2853 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

               S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 70/2014

Mukut Bihari
                                                                  ----Appellant
                                   Versus
State Through Collector Bundi And Others
                                                                ----Respondent

For Appellant(s)         :     Mr. Hemant Sharma
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. Akshay Sharma, G.C.



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

                                    Order

05/04/2022

This second appeal filed by the plaintiffs-appellants assailling

the judgment and decree dated 07.11.2013 passed by District

Judge, Bundi (Raj.) in Civil Appeal No.28/2013.

The counsel for appellant-plaintiffs submits that the land in

question is already recorded in the revenue record of Jamabandi in

the name of Shri Raghunath Ji Maharaj.

The present suit was filed by plaintiffs claiming right to

perform Pooja of the statue Shri Raghunath Ji Maharaj and

plaintiffs do not claim any declaration or protection of possession

in relation to the land in question in their favour.

Learned counsel for appellants submits that since the land in

question is already recorded in the name of Shri Raghunath Ji

Maharaj, the same be maintained intact.

Learned counsel for appellants submits that both courts

below have not hold the trial of their civil suit on merits and

(2 of 2) [CSA-70/2014]

rejected the suit by virtue of Section 259 of the Land Revenue Act,

1956. The first appellate court too has committed illegality and

jurisdictional error in affirming the rejection of plaint.

Learned counsel for appellants submits that the right to

perform pooja of the statue of Shri Raghunath Ji Maharaj is civil

right and triable by the civil court, matter requires consideration,

hence, the second appeal is admitted for hearing on the following

substantial questions of law:-

"Whether two courts below have committed jurisdictional error in dismissing the plaintiffs' suit by virtue of Section 259 of the Land Revenue Act, whereas the plaintiffs' suit is for determination of right to perform Pooja of the statue Shri Raghunath Ji Maharaj for which the civil court has jurisdiction to adjudicate?".

Issue notice respondent/s.

Respondents have put in appearance, no need to issue

notice.

Heard on the stay application.

During the pendency of the second appeal, both

parties are directed to maintain status quo in relation to the

dispute involved herein.

Accordingly, the stay application stands disposed of.

(SUDESH BANSAL),J

Sachin/74

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)