Municipal Board, Rajsamand vs Chatura (2023:Rj-Jd:26902)
2023 Latest Caselaw 6363 Raj

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 6363 Raj
Judgement Date : 24 August, 2023

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Municipal Board, Rajsamand vs Chatura (2023:Rj-Jd:26902) on 24 August, 2023

Bench: Rekha Borana

[2023:RJ-JD:26902]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 67/2019

Municipal Board, Rajsamand, Through Executive Officer, Municipal Board Rajsamand.

----Appellant Versus

1. Chatura S/o Hazari Gujar, R/o Guda Majara Patwar Mandal, Sanvad, Tehsil And District Rajsamand. (Rajasthan)

2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Collector, Rajsamand.

         (Rajasthan)
                                                                         ----Respondents


For Appellant(s)                 :     Mr. Yashwant Mehta



              HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

                                           Order

24/08/2023

1. The present second appeal has been preferred against the

judgment and decree dated 21.12.2018 passed by the Additional

District Judge, Rajsamand in Civil Appeal No.03/2016 whereby the

judgment and decree dated 13.08.1997 passed by Additional Civil

Judge (Senior Division), Rajsamand in Original Civil Suit

No.24/1995 has been affirmed. The suit for declaration and

permanent injunction as preferred by the plaintiff has been

decreed by the learned trial Court only for permanent injunction.

2. The plaintiff had prayed for the reliefs of declaration and

permanent injunction on the basis of his long possession on the

land in dispute. Issue No.1 qua possession was framed as under:

"1- D;k okn ds pj.k la-&1 esa of.kZr Hkwfe oknh ds vkf/kiR; esa xr 31&32 o'kZ ls pyh vk jgh gS ,oa bl vk/kkj ij oknh dk vkf/kiR; oS/k gS \"

[2023:RJ-JD:26902] (2 of 3) [CSA-67/2019]

3. While deciding the said issue, both the Courts below reached

to a concurrent finding that the plaintiff was in possession of the

property since Samvat 2026.

4. The case of appellant-Municipal Board, Rajsamand before

this Court is that the land in question stood transferred to the

Municipal Board and once it had been transferred, the possession

of the plaintiff would be of no consequence. Learned counsel for

the appellant submitted that even otherwise long possession of

the plaintiff was not proved on record and therefore, the findings

of both the Courts below deserve to be set aside.

5. No other ground has been raised before this Court.

6. So far as the finding regarding possession is concerned, the

learned trial Court concluded as under:

"lk{; ds foospu ls ;g izdV gksrk gS fd fookfnr Hkwfe utwy vFkok vkcknh Hkwfe ugha Fkh D;ksafd bl Hkwfe ds vkcknh esa leifjofrZr fd;s tkus dh dksbZ vf/klwpuk ;k lsV vikVZ fd;s tkus dk dksbZ vkns"k lk{; esa iznf"kZr ugha gqvk gS A oknh ds vkf/kiR; esa fookfnr Hkwfe d`f'k Hkwfe ds :i esa FkhA oknh dh lk{; ls ;gh izdV gqvk gS A oknh bl Hkwfe ij d`f'k djrk FkkA d`f'k iz;kstu ls mlus bl Hkwfe ij dqvka [kksnk gS vkSj o`{k Hkh yxk;s gSaA izn"kZ&1 rglhynkj ds fu.kZ; ls ;g Hkh izekf.kr gksrk gS fd bl Hkwfe ij lora 2026 ls ;k blds iwoZ ls oknh dk vkf/kiR; pyk vk jgk gS A fookfnr Hkwfe dk utwy Hkwfe ;k vkcknh Hkwfe gksus dk dksbZ izek.k izfroknhx.k dh lk{; }kjk izLrqr ugha gqvk A"

Further, "lk{; ds bl foospu ls ;g izekf.kr gksrk gS fd oknh dk U;wure laor 2026 ls fookfnr Hkwfe ij vkf/kiR; pyk vk jgk gS vkSj jkT; ljdkj us fofgr izfØ;k ¼tks fd Hkw jktLo vf/kfu;e ds varxZr izkof/kr gS½ dks fcuk viuk;s fookfnr Hkwfe uxj ikfydk] jktlean ds [kkrs esa ntZ dj nhA oknh dk vkf/kiR; 31&32 o'kksZa ls rks] fookfnr Hkwfe ij izekf.kr ugha gqvk gS ijUrq lEor 2026 ls vkf/kiR; izekf.kr gksrk gS A"

7. The findings as reached by the Court below cannot be

interfered with for the reasons:

Firstly, the same being factual in nature; Secondly, the

same being concurrent finding of both the Courts below and

thirdly, merely by transfer of a land to the Municipal Board,

[2023:RJ-JD:26902] (3 of 3) [CSA-67/2019]

possession of a person cannot be deemed to have ceased or

become inconsequential.

As concluded by the learned trial Court, the present one was

not a suit for declaration of title but was declaration of his long

possession. So far as the relief for declaration is concerned, the

same has been denied by the Court and the suit has been decreed