Bharat Singh vs Beg Raj (2023/Rjjd/014691)
2023 Latest Caselaw 4482 Raj

[2023/RJJD/014691]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 155/2012

Bharat Singh S/o Shri Kani Ram, by caste Jat, aged 38 years, resident of Ramgarh Tehsil Nohar District Hanumangarh at present resident of Riyad (UAE) through his power of attorney holder Shri Mahavir Khichad S/o Shri Kani Ram, by caste Jat, aged 24 years, resident of Ramgarh Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh

----Appellant Versus

1. Beg Raj S/o Shri Ram Chandra by caste Jat, resident of village Ramgarh, Tehsil Nohar District Hanumangarh.

2. The Gram Panchayat Ramgarh Panchayat Samiti

----Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. R.S. Choudhary For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Punia

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

Judgment

11/05/2023

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment

and decree dated 20.03.2012 passed by Additional District Judge,

Nohar, District Hanumangarh in Civil Regular Appeal No.14/2011

whereby the judgment and decree dated 13.07.2011 passed by

Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Nohar District Hanumangarh in Civil Suit

No.237/2006 has been affirmed.

2. Vide the judgment and decree dated 13.07.2011, learned

trial Court partly decreed the suit of the plaintiff for permanent

injunction and decreed the counter claim of the defendant for

declaration of patta dated 14.07.1960 in favour of plaintiff's

[2023/RJJD/014691] (2 of 3) [CSA-155/2012]

ancestors to be null and void and to restrain them from user of

the land of the common road/path (गली).

3. The case of the plaintiff was that he was in possession of the

land of his ownership of which a patta had been issued in favour

of his grandfather by the Gram Panchayat. The defendant was

trying to construct a tube-well in the ownership of his land and

therefore, he may be restrained from doing so. Alongwith the

written statement, a counter claim was preferred by the defendant

with the submission that the land as claimed by the plaintiff to be

of his ownership is actually the land of a public way and the patta

as claimed by the plaintiff to be issued in favour of his ancestors is

a forged one and the said patta could not have been issued on the

land of a public road.

4. Both the Courts below reached to a specific finding that

originally the pattas in favour of grandfathers of both the plaintiff

as well as the defendant were issued by the Gram Panchayat in

the year 1959. Both the said pattas were exhibited on record and

after taking them into consideration, it was found that in both the

pattas, in north of the plots, the gogamedi road was shown.

5. The patta alleged to be issued in the year 1960 in favour of

plaintiff's grandfather, on the basis of which the present suit has

been preferred, also showed public way of gogamedi in north but

the measurements of the plot thereof were not specified. The

Court therefore, specifically reached to the conclusion that the

patta of the year 1960, even if concluded to have been issued by

the Gram Panchayat, could not have been issued as the same was

qua the land of a public way. On the basis of the said finding, the

[2023/RJJD/014691] (3 of 3) [CSA-155/2012]

counter claim of the defendant was decreed and the patta dated

14.07.1960 was declared to be null and void.

6. So far as the suit of the plaintiff is concerned, both the

Courts came to the conclusion that the tube-well as sought to be

constructed by the defendants was also on the land of public way

and therefore, partly decreed the suit of the plaintiff with a liberty

to move to the appropriate State authorities for removal of the

said encroachment.

7. A perusal of the record and Ex.A3 (patta issued in the year

1959 in favour of Basti Ram, grandfather of defendant), Ex.A5

(patta issued in the year 1959 in favour of Ramchandra,

grandfather of the plaintiff) and Ex.1 (patta issued in the year

1960 in favour of the Ramchandra, plaintiff's grandfather) makes

it clear that the findings as arrived by both the Courts below are

totally in consonance with the said documents. It is clear on

record that there did, exist a common road in north of both the

plots and the finding of both the Courts that the patta in the year

1960 was issued on the land of public road is based on the

material available on record.

8. In view of the concurrent findings of both the Courts below

and that too totally factual in nature, this Court does not find any

substantial question of law in the present appeal and the same is

therefore, dismissed.

9. Stay petition and all the applications also stand dismissed.

(REKHA BORANA),J 40-T.Singh/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)