Rajasthan High Court
Fateh Singh S/O Ganeshilal vs State Of Rajasthan on 10 March, 2022
Bench: Sudesh Bansal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 393/2019
Fateh Singh S/o Ganeshilal, R/o Village Didwari, Tehsil Kumher,
District Bharatpur (Raj.).
----Appellant
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through District Collector, Bharatpur.
2. Sub-Divisional Officer, Kumher, District Bharatpur.
3. Tehsildar, Kumher, District Bharatpur.
4. Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Talfara, Tehsil Kumher,
District Bharatpur.
5. Shiv Singh, S/o Gangasahai Balig
6. Shivlal Balig, S/o Dalpat
7. Rajveer Balig, S/o Dalpat
8. Rajveer Balig, S/o Balram
9. Lal Singh Balig, S/o Bucha
10. Lavkush Balig, S/o Hubblal
11. Mohan Singh Balig S/o Bhanwar Singh, All R/o. Village
Didwari, Tehsil Kumher, District Bharatpur (Raj.).
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Dileep Singh Jadaun
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
Order
10/03/2022
1. The appellant-plaintiff has preferred this second appeal
assailing the judgment and decree dated 26.02.2015 passed by
Senior Civil Judge, Kumher, District Bharatpur in Civil Suit
No.31/2012 whereby and whereunder the plaintiff's civil suit for
permanent injunction was dismissed and the judgment and decree
(2 of 3) [CSA-393/2019]
has been affirmed by first appellate court vide judgment and
decree dated 20.07.2019 passed by Additional District Judge No.2,
Bharatpur in Civil Regular Appeal No.135/2017.
2. The dispute is about plot, detailed out para No.1 of the plaint
situated in Village Didwari, District Bharatpur. The plaintiff alleged
that he is having possession over the plot since time of his
predecessors and asked for decree of permanent injunction
against respondents-defendants for not disturbing his possession.
The government authorities-defendant Nos.1 to 3 and the private
defendant Nos.5 to 11 submitted written statement alleging inter
alia that the suit property is the government property whereupon
the plaintiff made temporary encroachment. The government
authorities issued notices to the plaintiff to remove the
encroachment and thereafter, on 26.05.2012, his encroachment
has been removed. The plaintiff, in order to again encroach upon
the suit land has preferred this suit.
3. Trial court recorded the evidence of both parties and on the
strength of appreciation of evidence recorded, the findings of fact
that the plaintiff's possession over the suit property since time of
his predecessors is not proved. In the report of Court
Commissioner (Exhibit-8) dated 02.07.2012, it reveals that one
buffalo was bind and some raw materials lying on the suit plot.
The trial court did not find the suit property in possession of the
plaintiff much less possession since time of predecessors. The trial
court has observed that suit property belongs to gram panchayat
and plaintiff had encroached thereupon. The trial court observed
that the government authorities have removed the encroachment
of plaintiff. The action of removal of encroachment is substantiated
by evidence of defendants. Accordingly, the trial court dismissed
(3 of 3) [CSA-393/2019]
the plaintiff's suit. The appellate court also did not file any
illegality/infirmity/perversity/jurisdictional error in the findings of
trial court dismissing the plaintiff's suit heard the counsel for
appellant.
4. In view of concurrent findings of fact and the fact findings
recorded by two courts below, this Court is of considered opinion
that the same does not give rise to any other substantial question
of law. The findings recorded by two courts below are based on
appreciation of evidence on record. Re-appreciation of evidence is
not permissible within the scope of Section 100. The second
appeal, in absence of involvements/formulation of substantial
question of law, second appeal cannot be entertained. As a result,
the second appeal is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
5. All pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J
SAURABH/6
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
