Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Jhindu Ram vs State Of Rajasthan And Anr. ... on 19 November, 2025
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:49960]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 61/2017
Jhindu Ram S/o Shri Khanga Ram, Resident of Anupshahar Tehsil
Bhadra District Hanumangarh.
----Appellant
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through District Collector,
Hanumangarh.
2. Naib Tehsildar Bhadra, Tehsil Bhadra District
Hanumangarh.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. R.S. Choudhary
Mr. Yuvraj Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjay Raj Paliwal, GC
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
19/11/2025
1. The present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 has been filed by the appellant-Jhindu Ram
against the judgment and decree dated 18.01.2017 passed by the
learned Additional District Judge, Bhadra, District Hanumangarh in
Civil Regular Appeal No.02/2016, whereby the judgment and
decree dated 27.04.2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge,
Bhadra, District Hanumangarh in Civil Original Suit No.164/2013
(34/2008) has been affirmed and the appeal has been dismissed.
2. The facts, in nutshell, necessary for deciding the present
second appeal are that the appellant-plaintiff filed a civil suit
before the learned trial Court stating, inter alia, that he is the
owner and in possession of a plot situated at Anupsheher in Abadi
(Uploaded on 19/11/2025 at 05:12:31 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:49960] (2 of 3) [CSA-61/2017]
Area since long. It was alleged that defendant No.2, under political
pressure, issued notice dated 05.05.2008 under Section 22 of the
Rajasthan Colonization Act initiating eviction proceedings against
the plaintiff in respect of the said plot.
3. It was the case of the appellant-plaintiff that he is having a
valid patta issued in his favour by the competent authority and the
plot, surrounded by a boundary wall, is situated in the abadi area
falling within the jurisdiction of the Gram Panchayat. The
appellant-plaintiff, therefore, prayed for a decree of permanent
injunction restraining defendant No.2 from disturbing his peaceful
possession and from proceeding with the eviction proceedings.
4. The respondents-defendants filed a written statement
asserting specifically that the land in question is recorded as Johar
Paitan land in the revenue records and is situated in Khasra
No.1021/531. It was further stated that the Government of
Rajasthan and this Hon'ble Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.1536/2003 have issued specific directions for protection of
Johar Paitan land, which is not available for allotment. The
competent authority has repeatedly issued directions for removal
of encroachments made over Johar Paitan land. The patta relied
upon by the appellant-plaintiff has no legal sanctity, as no
proceedings of the Gram Panchayat leading to issuance of such
patta have been placed on record. Even otherwise, the Gram
Panchayat has no authority to issue patta over Johar Paitan land.
5. The learned trial Court, on the basis of the pleadings of the
parties, framed as many as four issues including the issue relating
to relief. Upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the
learned trial Court recorded a categorical finding that the plot in
(Uploaded on 19/11/2025 at 05:12:31 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:49960] (3 of 3) [CSA-61/2017]
question is Johar Paitan land, which could not have been allotted
to the appellant-plaintiff.
6. The Appellate Court, in the appeal preferred by the
appellant-plaintiff, upheld the findings recorded by the learned
trial Court and affirmed the judgment and decree dated
27.04.2016.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff
and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court is
of the considered view that there is no perversity in the
concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below. The appellant
has miserably failed to prove that the plot in question is not Johar
Paitan land or that the patta in respect of the said land was validly
issued in his favour.
8. This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the
impugned judgments, particularly as no question of law, much less
a substantial question of law, arises for consideration in this
second appeal.
9. Accordingly, the present second appeal stands dismissed.
10. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
24-divya/-
(Uploaded on 19/11/2025 at 05:12:31 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
