[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Hemraj vs Urban Improvement Trust ... on 15 January, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:2346]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 3176/2025
1. Hemraj S/o Shri Champa Lal, Aged About 65 Years, R/o
Savina, Udaiur, District Udaipur, Rajasthan. Through The
Power Of Attorney Holder Hakeem S/o Abdul Rehman,
Aged About 70Years, R/o Savina, Udaiur, District Udaipur,
Rajasthan.
2. Khayali Lal S/o Shri Champa Lal, Aged About 60 Years, R/
o Savina, Udaiur, District Udaipur, Rajasthan. Through The
Power Of Attorney Holder Hakeem S/o Abdul Rehman,
Aged About 70Years, R/o Savina, Udaiur, District Udaipur,
Rajasthan.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur Through Secretary,
Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur
2. Rajasthan State, Through District Collector, District
Collector Complex, Udaipur
3. Vivek S/o Kishan Lal Chaplot, R/o 192, Ashok Nagar Road
No. 15, Udaipur
4. Mayank S/o Kishan Lal Chaplot, R/o 192, Ashok Nagar
Road No. 15, Udaipur
5. Rahul S/o Kishan Lal Chaplot, R/o 192, Ashok Nagar Road
No. 15, Udaipur
6. Ms Raksha D/o Kishan Lal Chaplot, R/o192, Ashok Nagar
Road No. 15, Udaipur.
7. Arjun Lal S/o Sukh Lal Jain, R/o 112 Sarvaritu Vilas,
Udaipur.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Firoz Khan.
Mr. Ramesh Kumar.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Purohit.
Mr. Muktesh Maheshwari.
Mr. Sanjay Paliwal.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT
Order
(Uploaded on 19/01/2026 at 07:00:10 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:2346] (2 of 5) [CMA-3176/2025]
15/01/2026
1. By way of present misc. appeal, the appellants challenge the
validity of order dated 28.08.2025, whereby the Court of District
Judge (Labour Court), Udaipur, has dismissed the application of
appellants/plaintiffs under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with
Section 151 CPC.
2. As per counsel for the appellants, the appellants were
recorded khatedars of Khasra No. 528 (old) admeasuring 3 bigha
7 biswa situated at Village Savina, Tehsil Girwa, District Udaipur. A
part of the land in question, measuring 2 bigha 16 biswa, was
sold by the appellants vide registered sale deed dated
24.09.1977, and since thereafter, the appellants/plaintiffs have
claimed to be in continuous possession of remaining 11 biswas of
land ("land in question"). It is stated that over the years, by way
of change of entries in the revenue record, the land in question
came to be recorded in the name of UIT, Udaipur and then in the
name of UDA, Udaipur. However, no statutory acquisition or
surrender by plaintiff regarding land in question has ever
happened, yet respondent tried to dispossess the appellant-
plaintiff. In this factual background, the suit for permanent
injunction alongwith the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1
and 2 seeking temporary injunction was filed.
3. Learned trial Court, after considering the material available
on record, has decided issues of prima facie case as well as the
issues of balance of convenience and irregular injury against the
appellants/plaintiffs and vide order dated 28.08.2025 dismissed
(Uploaded on 19/01/2026 at 07:00:10 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:2346] (3 of 5) [CMA-3176/2025]
the application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2, which has
been challenged in the present misc. appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the pleadings
of the parties and the documents available on record have not
been considered by learned trial Court in judicious manner. It is
stated that admittedly, no former acquisition for acquiring the
land measuring 11 biswas has ever been done by the Government
Authorities and, therefore, the plaintiffs are still the rightful
owners of the said land, thus a prima facie case was rightly
established by the plaintiffs. Learned counsel for the appellants
further contended that the land of the plaintiffs was wrongly
shown in the name of UIT/UDA, Udaipur who, in turn, has
proposed to allot the said land in favour of other parties, which is
going to cause irreparable injury to the plaintiffs. In this view of
the matter, the rejection of appellants' application under Order
XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 is not justified.
5. Learned counsel Mr. Vijay Purohit, arguing on behalf of
respondent No.1, has vehemently opposed the submissions
advanced on behalf of the appellants and argued that the suit
filed by the plaintiffs is wholly misconceived.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 further stated that
as a matter of fact, the plaintiffs never remained in possession of
the said 11 biswas of land and even the revenue suit filed by the
plaintiffs claiming the said land has also been rejected. Learned
counsel for the respondent No. 1 also contended that the plaintiffs
have failed to establish the actual location of the said land and
(Uploaded on 19/01/2026 at 07:00:10 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:2346] (4 of 5) [CMA-3176/2025]
made self-contradictory averments regarding the khasra numbers,
which was clearly taken into account by the learned Trial Court.
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 to
6 stated that land in question has already been allotted by the
UIT/UDA to them and the amount of consideration has already
been deposited. In these circumstances, learned trial Court has
rightly rejected the application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1
and 2 CPC.
8. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
9. A bare perusal of the pleadings of the parties and the
findings recorded by the learned Trial Court reveals that out of the
total land of 3 bigha 7 biswa, part of land measuring 2 bigha 16
biswa has already been sold by the plaintiffs by way of registered
sale deed dated 24.09.1977. While referring to the contents of
the said sale deed, a clear finding has been recorded by learned
Trial Court that there is a specific admission by the plaintiffs in the
said sale deed that the remaining 11 biswas of land has already
been covered/surrendered for road. Learned counsel for the
appellants failed to dispute the said averment/admission made in
the sale deed executed by the plaintiffs themselves. The pleadings
further shows that the plaintiffs have failed to establish the actual
location of land, and even the learned trial Court has recorded a
specific finding that there is a contradiction in pleadings regarding
the actual location of land, either in Araji No. 750 or Araji No.
749.
(Uploaded on 19/01/2026 at 07:00:10 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:2346] (5 of 5) [CMA-3176/2025]
10. As pointed by the learned counsel for the respondent No.1, it
is found that learned trial Court also considered that the revenue
proceedings initiated by the plaintiffs have also been decided
against them, and even in a civil suit already decided by the
judgment and decree dated 15.07.2000, holding that the plaintiffs
do not have any possession over the land in question. The counsel
for the appellant has not disputed the fact that the land has
already been allotted to the private respondents. Hence, the
learned trial Court has rightly decided the issue of prima facie
case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury as against the
plaintiffs.
11. The appellants have failed to establish any error in order
dated 18.08.2025 impugned in the present appeal. The order
passed is perfectly valid and reasoned and warrants no
interference by this Court.
12. In view of the observations made above, the present appeal
is hereby dismissed and impugned order dated 28.08.2025 is
upheld accordingly.
13. Stay application and all other pending applications stand
disposed of.
(SANJEET PUROHIT),J
9-sumer/-
(Uploaded on 19/01/2026 at 07:00:10 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
