Nand Ram vs Shri Shankheswar Parshvnath ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 7077 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:29031-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 412/2023

1. Nand Ram S/o Shri Radhe Lal Mali, Aged About 60 Years, Dashara Maidan, Indira Colony, Ward No. 9, District Pratapgarh.

2. Pushpendra S/o Shri Radhe Lal Mali, Aged About 58 Years, Dashara Maidan, Indira Colony, Ward No. 9, District Pratapgarh.

3. Avanti Lal S/o Shri Radhe Lal Mali, Aged About 44 Years, Dashara Maidan, Indira Colony, Ward No. 9, District Pratapgarh.

4. Yashoda D/o Shri Radhe Lal Mali W/o Shri Dinesh Mali, Aged About 49 Years, Dashara Maidan, Indira Colony, Ward No. 9, District Pratapgarh.

5. Hasu Bai D/o Shri Radhe Lal Mali W/o Shri Govind Ram Mali, Aged About 55 Years, Dashara Maidan, Indira Colony, Ward No. 9, District Pratapgarh.

6. Dhapu Bai D/o Shri Radhe Lal Mali W/o Shri Tulsi Ram Mali, Aged About 52 Years, Dashara Maidan, Indira Colony, Ward No. 9, District Pratapgarh.

7. Godavari @ Narmada D/o Shri Radhe Lal Mali W/o Shri Suresh Mali, Aged About 50 Years, Dashara Maidan, Indira Colony, Ward No. 9, District Pratapgarh.

----Appellants Versus Shri Shankheswar Parshvnath Mandir (Mandir Parshavnath), Pratapgarh Through Trustee Ashok Kankreja S/o Shri Kanhaiyalal Kankreja, R/o Indira Colony, Near Talab, Pratapgarh.

                                                                    ----Respondent


For Appellant(s)              :    Mr. Rakesh Arora.
For Respondent(s)             :    Mr. Abhinav Jain.

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Order

12/09/2023 (Oral)

Challenge in this appeal is the judgment passed by the

learned Single dated 24.04.2023, whereby the challenge to the

orders passed by the three revenue authorities wherein the order

[2023:RJ-JD:29031-DB] (2 of 2) [SAW-412/2023]

of eviction passed against the appellants had been affirmed was

dismissed leading to filing of the present appeal.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants has made an effort to

assert that the appellants were in possession since Samvat 2002,

whereas the name of the temple had been entered in Samvat

2010, which is subsequent to the possession having been

established of the appellants. In this regard, he has referred to

revenue record. Prayer has thus been made that the orders

passed by the revenue authorities as also the judgment of the

learned Single Judge are unsustainable as the possession of the

appellants was prior to that of the temple, respondent-plaintiff.

3. This contention of learned counsel for the appellants cannot

be accepted as the ownership of the land came to be entered into

in the name of the respondent-plaintiff by way of mutation entries

in Samvat 2010. The said document has never been challenged.

The ownership, therefore, stands established in the name of

respondent-plaintiff, Shri Shankeswar Parshavnath Mandir (Mandir

Parshavnath), Pratapgarh. The validity of those entries in the

revenue record till date have not been challenged. The ownership

of the respondent-temple having been established over a period of

years, the eviction of the appellants from the land, as ordered,

was in accordance with law.

4. Finding no merit in the present appeal, the same, therefore,

stands dismissed.

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH),CJ

56-a.asopa/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)