Rajasthan High Court
Kamlesh Meena W/O Shri Mool Chand ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 7 May, 2022
Bench: Sudesh Bansal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 418/2019
Kamlesh Meena W/o Shri Mool Chand Meena, Aged About 61
Years, R/o Village Savatsar Post Jhiri, Tehsil Thanagaji, District
Alwar At Present Residing At Village Bhangarh, Tehsil Rajgarh,
District Alwar
----Appellant-Plaintiff
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through District Collector, Alwar
Rajasthan
2. Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department, Alwar (Raj)
3. Assistant Engineer, Irrigation Department, Bagraj Ki Pal,
Rajgarh, Alwar, Raj.
4. Chauthmal Meena S/o Shri Bhagwan Sahay Meena, R/o
Todi Ka Bas Post Gola Ka Bas, Tehsil Rajgarh, District
Alwar
----Respondents-Defendants
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Jai Prakash Gupta
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
Order
07/05/2022
1. The appellant-plaintiff (hereafter 'plaintiff') has preferred
this second appeal under Section 100 of CPC assailing the
judgment and decree dated 22.05.2019 passed in first appeal
No.11/2018 by Additional District Judge, Rajgarh, District Alwar
affirming the judgment and decree dismissing the plaintiff's suit
for permanent injunction on 10.04.2018 passed in civil suit
No.70/2012 by the Court of Civil Judge, Rajgarh, District Alwar.
2. It appears from the record that the agricultural land in
question belongs to Irrigation Department was leased out to the
appellant-plaintiff in the year 1992 initially for a period of three
(2 of 2) [CSA-418/2019]
years. Later on the lease was renewed year to year upto 2011.
Thereafter, without taking possession of the agricultural land from
the appellant-plaintiff, the Irrigation Department leased out the
agricultural land in favour of the respondent-defendant No.4 for a
period of one year. At this juncture, the appellant-plaintiff
instituted the present civil suit for permanent injunction for
protection of his possession that without following due process of
law, the plaintiff may not be dispossessed.
3. It appears from the impugned judgments that since the
plaintiff could not appear in witness box and the evidence of
plaintiff was closed, both courts below have dismissed the
plaintiff's suit though, the possession of plaintiff over the
agricultural land in question was not disbelieved.
4. During the course of arguments, the counsel for appellant
submits that after lapse of the lease period issued in favour of the
respondent No.4, again the lease has been issued in favour of the
appellant-plaintiff and the appellant-plaintiff is having lawful and
valid cultivation and possession of the agricultural land in question
in view of subsequent lease issued in favour of appellant.
5. In view of above, the cause of action to institute the present
suit for permanent injunction has come to an end and the issue
involved in the second appeal has become redundant, hence the
second appeal is dismissed as having become infructuous in view
of subsequent events mentioned hereinabove.
6. It is needless to say that, if any subsequent cause of action
accrues to the appellant, she is always at liberty to seek
appropriate remedy under the law.
7. Stay application and any other pending application(s), if any,
stand(s) disposed of.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J
TN/1
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
