Dismissed

Nathu Singh and Ors. v. Ram Singh

Rajasthan HC25 Feb 2015CSA/340/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a second appeal regarding a suit for injunction, the High Court of Rajasthan, Jodhpur, dismissed the appeal. The court found the disputed vacant plot was vested in the Gram Panchayat, not the parties. It directed the Gram Panchayat to put the land to auction, leaving the First Appellate Court's decision otherwise open.

What did the court decide?

The appeal dismissed; the disputed vacant plot of 23x44 ft. is to be opened for auction by the concerned Gram Panchayat.

Nathu Singh and Ors. Vs Ram Singh — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2015)

¶1

S.B. CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO.340/2011. Nathu Singh S/o Nar Singh Ranawat & Ors. Vs. Ram Singh S/o Mohan Singh Ranawat & Anr.

¶2

.. Judgment dated 25.02.2015

¶3

1/14

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

¶5

AT JODHPUR.

¶6

:: JUDGMENT ::

¶7

S.B. CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO.340/2011.

¶8

Nathu Singh S/o Nar Singh Ranawat & Ors. Vs. Ram Singh S/o Mohan Singh Ranawat & Anr.

¶9

Date of Judgment :::: 25^th February, 2015.

¶10

P R E S E N T

¶11

HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI

¶12

Appearance:

¶13

Mr. Deelip Kawadia, for the appellants-defendants. Mr. Sunil Ranwah & Mr. V.S. Rathore on behalf of Mr. Manish Shishodia, for the respondent-plaintiff. Mr. Manish Patel, Addl. Govt. Counsel-Panchayat Samiti. <<>>

¶14

BY THE COURT :

¶15

The present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendants namely, (1) Nathu Singh, (2) Madhu Singh, both sons of Nar Singh Ranawat, (3) Sajjan Singh S/o Nathu Singh Ranawat, and (4) Maan Singh S/o Vijay Singh Ranawat against the plaintiff-Ram Singh S/o Mohan Singh Ranawat, is arising out of the judgment and decree dated 02.02.2011 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track), Rajsamand in Civil Appeal No. 22/2009 “Ram Singh Vs. Nathu Singh &

¶16

S.B. CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO.340/2011. Nathu Singh S/o Nar Singh Ranawat & Ors. Vs. Ram Singh S/o Mohan Singh Ranawat & Anr.

¶17

.. Judgment dated 25.02.2015

¶18

2/14

¶19

Ors.” who allowed the appeal filed by the respondent-plaintiffRam Singh and reversed the judgment and decree dated 02.08.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amet, District Rajsamand in Civil Original Case No. 118/1993 “Ram Singh Vs. Nathu Singh & Ors.” by which, the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) had dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff-Ram Singh seeking declaratory and prohibitory injunction in relation to the plot of land admeasuring 23x44 ft. situated at village Saprao Ka Guda, Tehsil Amet, Gram Panchayat Idana, District Rajsamand.

¶20

The learned Trial Court, after framing of the relevant issues arising out of the plaint and written statement of the parties and leading of relevant evidence, in its order dated 02.08.2007 observed as under:-

¶21

“18. इस पक�र जह�� तक व�दगसत स��न पर सव�म�तव क� सव�ल ह� वह उपर�क ववव�चन� अन�स�र ववननशय ककय� ज�न� क$ आवशयकत� ह� नह'( स�झत� ह� और जह�� तक व�दगसत स��न पर कबज� क� सव�ल ह� त� व�द' व�दगसत स��न पर अपन� कबज� द�व� द�यर' क� र�ज स�ब-त करन� �� असफल रह� ह� इस/मलय� तनक$ स(खय� 1 जह�� तक व�दगसत स��न पर व�द' क� कबज� क� सव�ल ह� वह�� तक व�द' क� ववरद ननर4त क$ ज�त/ ह�। व�दगसत सव�म�तव क� सम-न8 �9 उपर�क ववव�चन� अन�स�र ववननशय क$ आवशयकत� ह� नह'( स�झत�

¶22

S.B. CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO.340/2011. Nathu Singh S/o Nar Singh Ranawat & Ors. Vs. Ram Singh S/o Mohan Singh Ranawat & Anr.

¶23

.. Judgment dated 25.02.2015

¶24

3/14

¶25

ह� और उपर�क ववव�चन� अन�स�र व�दगसत स��न पर पनतव�द'गर क� कबज� सन; 1981 स� ह�न� सपष ह�त� ह� और उपर�क ववव�चन� स� व�द' क$ ज�नक�र' �9 पनतव�द'गर क� स��वपत कबज� ह�न� एव( पनतव�द'गर द�र� पकट रप स� द�व� द�यर' स� प@वA सफ�द पत�रB क$ क�ट -न�ई ज�न� सपष ह�त� ह� , इस/मलय� जह�� तक तनक$ स(खय� -4 क� सव�ल ह� त� यह पनतव�द'गर क� पक �9 ववननशशत क$ ज�त/ ह� और व�दगसत स��न पर पनतव�द' पक क� कबज� सन; 1981 स� ह�न� सपष ह�त� ह�।

¶26

आद�श

¶27

22. अत : आद�श ह� कक व�द' क� व�द ववरद पनतव�द'गर ख�ररज ककय� ज�त� ह�। खच�A पकक�र�न अपन� अपन� वहन कर9। डJक$ पच�A ननय��न�स�र -न�य� ज�व�।

¶28

Sd/( मशवपस�द तम-�ल' ) मसववल नय�य�8/श ( क . ख .) एव नय�नयक �शजसL�ट प�� वगA - आ��ट "

¶29

Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 02.08.2007 passed by the learned Trial Court, the plaintiff/respondent-Ram Singh filed the first appeal before the learned First Appellate Court of Additional District Judge (Fast Track), Rajsamand which was allowed on 02.02.2011 , while reversing the judgment and decree dated 02.08.2007 of the learned Trial Court. The relevant portion of the discussion made

¶30

S.B. CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO.340/2011. Nathu Singh S/o Nar Singh Ranawat & Ors. Vs. Ram Singh S/o Mohan Singh Ranawat & Anr. .. Judgment dated 25.02.2015

¶31

4/14

¶32

by the learned First Appellate Court is quoted herein below for ready reference:-

¶33

“ उपर�क स�सत स�कय क� ववव�चन क� उपर�(त यह ननषकरA ननकलत� ह� कक इस पकरर �9 व�द' र��मस(ह क� पक �9 ग�� प(च�यत आईJ�र� द�र� पट� पदशA -1 ज�र' ककय� गय� ह�। न/ल��/ क$ क�यAव�ह' क� स(-(8 �9 ��त एक स�क/ पर'ककत ह�आ ह�। उसन� भ/ न/ल��/ क� स(-(8 �9 अपन� हसत�कर सव/क�र ककय� ह� , ज-कक सरप(च क�नमस(ह प/ JबTय@ -5 तरद'द' स�कय �9 पसत�त ह�आ ह� और उसन� व�द' स�क/ ह�त� ह�ए भ/ मसफA पनतव�द' क� दसत�व�ज पदशA ए -2 क� भ/ स�ब-त ककय� ह� , उसस� इस स(-(8 �9 क�ई पनतपर'कर नह'( ककय� गय� ह� न ह' यह स�ब-त कर�य� गय� ह� कक पट� ज�र' ककय� ज�न� क� स(-(8 �9 ज� प@वA औपच�ररकत� ह�ई ह� , वह उसक� द�र� क$ गई ह�। उसक$ ननषपकत� भ/ ककस/ पक�र स� स(ददग8 नह'( ह�। अत� ��हम�द प/ JबTय@ 6 न� सरप(च क�नमस(ह द�र� क$ गई क�यAव�ह' क$ अन�प�लन� �9 ��त पट� ज�र' ककय� ह�। पट� ज�र' करन� क� प@वA 3-4 व�JA प(चB क$ उपशस�नत �9 पच�A �Wक� -न�य� गय� ह� , उस� भ/ ककस/ पक�र स� च�नWत/ नह'( द' गई ह�। अत : न/ल��/ ककस/ भ/ पक�र स� फज4 नह'( ��न/ ज� सकत/। अत : व�द' र��मस(ह क� पक �9 पट� ननय��न�स�र ज�र' ककय� गय� ह� त�� पट� क� अन�प�लन �9 उसन� अपन� कबज� -त�य� ह� , शजसक$ प�वष सचचव अत� ��हम�द न� क$ ह� और इन द�नB स�ककयB स� क�ई पनतपर'कर कबज� क� स(-(8 �9 नह'( ह�आ ह�। अनय

¶34

S.B. CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO.340/2011. Nathu Singh S/o Nar Singh Ranawat & Ors. Vs. Ram Singh S/o Mohan Singh Ranawat & Anr.

¶35

.. Judgment dated 25.02.2015

¶36

5/14

¶37

व�द' स�ककयB न� भ/ व�द' क� आच8पतय क$ प�वष क$ ह�। इन सभ/ स�ककयB क� ग�(व सपर�व क� ग�J� �9 आन� ज�न� प��णरत ह�त� ह�। पनतव�द' क$ स�क/ ��त पनतव�द' क� कबज� र�J/ क� द�र� -त�त� ह� ल�ककन इस तथय क� ककस/ भ/ पक�र स� च�नWत/ नह'( द' ह� कक ग�� प(च�यत न� कबज� नह'( ददय� ह�। जह�( तक व�द' द�र� अपन� -य�न� �9 कबज� व�पस स�प�दA करन� क� पश ह� , इसस� यह ननषकरA नह'( ननक�ल� ज� सकत� कक उसक� ववव�ददत पल�ट पर क�ई कबज� नह'( ह�। उपर�क स�सत ववव�चन ववव�दक स(खय� 1 व�द' अपन� पक �9 प��णरत कर�न� �� सफल रह� ह�। अत : यह ववव�दक व�द' क� पक �9 एव( पनतव�द'गर क� ववरद ननणरAत ककय� ज�त� ह� ।"

¶38

In the ultimate analysis of its discussion, the learned First Appellate Court, while allowing the appeal of the plaintiff, decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff-Ram Singh in the following manner-

¶39

" आद�श

¶40

अत : अप/ल�(ट / व�द' र��मस(ह क$ यह अप/ल सव/क�र क$ ज�कर व�द -�-त आद�श�त�क एव( ननर8�त�क ननर�8�ज� क� ववरद पनतव�द'गर स(खय� 1 स� 4 डJक$ ककय� ज�कर इस आशय क$ स��ई ननर�8�ज� ज�र' क$ ज�त/ ह� कक पनतव�द'गर व�दपत क$ कल� स(खय� 1 �9 वणरAत पल�ट पर कबज� नह'( कर� , उस�9 क�ई हसतक�प , अनतक�र , -�8� उतपनन

¶41

S.B. CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO.340/2011. Nathu Singh S/o Nar Singh Ranawat & Ors. Vs. Ram Singh S/o Mohan Singh Ranawat & Anr.

¶42

.. Judgment dated 25.02.2015

¶43

6/14

¶44

नह'( कर�। व�द क$ पररशस�नतयB क� द�खत� ह�ए खच�A पकक�र�न अपन� - अपन� वहन कर9ग�। पच�A डJक$ ननय��न�स�र त�य�र ककय� ज�व�।

¶45

By the order dated 10.08.2011 , while issuing notices in the present second appeal of the defendants-Nathu Singh & Ors. to the respondents, this Court also directed issuance of the notices to the Panchayat Samiti, Amet and again on 09.02.2015 , the report of the concerned Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti-Amet, District Rajsamand was called for with the relevant record in relation to the disputed site. The order dated 09.02.2015 is reproduced herein below for ready reference:-

¶46

“Copy of the reply to the stay application filed by the respondent No.2, Gram Panchayat Aidana, Panchayat Samiti- Amet, District: Rajsamand, has not been supplied to Mr. Manish Shisodia, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/plaintiff (decree-holder).

¶47

Mr. Deelip Kawadia, learned counsel for the appellants may supply the copy of reply to learned counsel for the respondent No.1/plaintiff during the course of the day.

¶48

Learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submitted that since the “Patta” was issued by the

¶49

S.B. CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO.340/2011. Nathu Singh S/o Nar Singh Ranawat & Ors. Vs. Ram Singh S/o Mohan Singh Ranawat & Anr.

¶50

.. Judgment dated 25.02.2015

¶51

7/14

¶52

said Gram Panchayat- Aidana in favour of respondent/plaintiff, therefore, they could not say in the reply as has been stated that the land in question belongs to Gram Panchayat and neither of these parties before this Court.

¶53

Let Gram Panchayat may verify this fact and file additional reply, if any, so required within a period of two weeks from today. If the reply is not filed by the Gram Panchayat with the copy of the relevant record before the next date, the concerned B.D.O., Panchayat Samiti- Amet, District: Rajsamand, namely, Mr. Prakash Chandra Pokharna, who has filed this reply to the stay application, shall remain present before this Court along-with relevant record. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Gram Panchayat, Aidana, Panchayat Samiti- Amet, District: Rajsamand forthwith.

¶54

Put up on 25.02.2015 .”

¶55

In pursuance of the order dated 09.02.2015 , the learned Additional Government Counsel Mr. Manish Patel appearing for the concerned Panchayat Samiti, Amet has filed a reply to the stay petition and placed on record the copies of the Mauka Fard Report, Nazari Naksha, pattas issued in favour of the plaintiffRam Singh and a communication dated 05.07.2011 . The learned counsel Mr. Manish Patel submitted that the plaintiff-Ram Singh

¶56

S.B. CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO.340/2011. Nathu Singh S/o Nar Singh Ranawat & Ors. Vs. Ram Singh S/o Mohan Singh Ranawat & Anr. .. Judgment dated 25.02.2015

¶57

8/14

¶58

was initially allotted a plot of land admeasuring 30x45 ft. and patta of the said land was also issued by the Gram Panchayat in his favour. Thereafter, adjacent to the aforesaid plot of land owned by the plaintiff-Ram Singh, on the western side, another plot of land admeasuring 14x44 ft. was put to auction by the Gram Panchayat and the same was also purchased by the plaintiff-Ram Singh and a patta of this plot of land of 14x44 ft. was also issued in his favour. The learned counsel Mr. Manish Patel also submitted that the plaintiff-Ram Singh is in possession of both the plots of lands aforesaid but the disputed plot of land admeasuring 23x44 ft. is situated just further adjacent to the aforesaid plot of land admeasuring 14x44 ft. presently owned by the plaintiff-Ram Singh on the western side and after that, there is a 'public way', as given in the Map produced with the reply. According to the report of the concerned Block Development Officer, on the disputed plot of land, the defendants namely, Nathu Singh and Madhu Singh have put some stones and rodi for the purpose of construction. The learned counsel Mr. Manish Patel further submitted that the disputed plot of land admeasuring 23x44 ft. is lying vacant and is not allotted to anybody. It is also submitted that neither the plaintiff-Ram Singh is or the defendants namely, Nathu Singh and others are in possession of the said land in dispute; and the plot of land

¶59

S.B. CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO.340/2011. Nathu Singh S/o Nar Singh Ranawat & Ors. Vs. Ram Singh S/o Mohan Singh Ranawat & Anr.

¶60

.. Judgment dated 25.02.2015

¶61

9/14

¶62

admeasuring 23x44 ft. is presently vested in the Gram Panchayat only and, therefore, the injunction prayed for by the plaintiff-Ram Singh could not have been given by the learned First Appellate Court for the said disputed open plot of 23x44 ft. which vests in the Gram Panchayat and the plaintiff-Ram Singh had no right to claim any injunction against the private defendants – Nathu Singh & Ors. for the same. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel Mr. Sunil Ranwah and Mr. Vikram Singh Rathore on behalf of Mr. Manish Shishodia appearing for the plaintiff-Ram Singh submitted that the injunction prayer of the plaintiff was limited only in relation to the plot of land admeasuring 14x44 ft. which was purchased by the plaintiff in auction from the Gram Panchayat and, admittedly, the patta of the same was issued in his favour by the concerned Gram Panchayat and not in respect of further western side plot of land of 23x44 ft. adjacent to the public way and since the defendants Nathu Singh and three others sought to raise construction on the plot of land admeasuring 14x44 ft. of his aforesaid land by putting stones and rodi and sought to interfere with his peaceful possession, therefore, the plaintiff had filed the present injunction suit which has been dismissed by the Trial Court but while allowing the appeal, the suit has been rightly decreed by the learned First Appellate Court. The learned

¶63

S.B. CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO.340/2011. Nathu Singh S/o Nar Singh Ranawat & Ors. Vs. Ram Singh S/o Mohan Singh Ranawat & Anr. .. Judgment dated 25.02.2015

¶64

10/14

¶65

counsel Mr. Sunil Ranwah for the plaintiff submitted that the plaintiff is not concerned with the disputed plot of land admeasuring 23x44 ft. situated just adjacent to his plot of land measuring 14x44 ft. on the western side of his plot of land. It is also submitted that in the circumstances of the case, the learned First Appellate Court had rightly decreed the suit and issued injunction and restraint order against the defendants for not interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the plot of land admeasuring 14x44 ft. for which patta was issued in his favour.

¶66

The learned counsel Mr. Deelip Kawadia appearing for the defendants-appellants-Nathu Singh & Ors. submitted that the defendants have the possession over the land in dispute measuring 23x44 ft. since long and, therefore, the learned First Appellate Court was not justified in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-respondent-Ram Singh.

¶67

Having heard the learned counsel for the appellantdefendants and upon perusal of the impugned judgments and decree of the both Courts below including the Report of the concerned Gram Sevak-cum-Paden Sachiv namely, Lakhpat Singh S/o Bhagwat Singh now submitted in this Court on 22.02.2015 , this Court is of the considered opinion that neither the plaintiff-Ram Singh nor the defendants namely, (1) Nathu

¶68

S.B. CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO.340/2011. Nathu Singh S/o Nar Singh Ranawat & Ors. Vs. Ram Singh S/o Mohan Singh Ranawat & Anr. .. Judgment dated 25.02.2015

¶69

11/14

¶70

Singh, (2) Madhu Singh, both sons of Nar Singh Ranawat, (3) Sajjan Singh S/o Nathu Singh Ranawat, and (4) Maan Singh S/o Vijay Singh Ranawat can be said to be said to have any title or be in the possession of the disputed plot of land admeasuring 23x44 ft. situated on the western side of plaintiff's Ram Singh plot of land measuring 14x44 ft. for which a patta was issued in his favour after the auction, as is evident from the report submitted by the concerned Gram Panchayat and the map of the site in question. It is noticed that the disputed plot of land is situated just adjacent to the plot of land owned by the plaintiffRam Singh and the disputed plot of land is lying vacant and, admittedly, is vested in the concerned Gram Panchayat, therefore, neither the plaintiff-Ram Singh nor the defendants namely, (1) Nathu Singh, (2) Madhu Singh, both sons of Nar Singh Ranawat, (3) Sajjan Singh S/o Nathu Singh Ranawat, and (4) Maan Singh S/o Vijay Singh Ranawat have any right, title or interest over the said disputed plot of land. The gist of the report submitted by the concerned Gram Panchayat is reproduced herein below for ready reference:-

¶71

“4. That reply to stay petition was already filed by the concern Panchayat Samiti through its Block Development Officer and categorically took stand that suit property is not in possession of either Appellants or Respondent. It is further stated in

¶72

S.B. CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO.340/2011. Nathu Singh S/o Nar Singh Ranawat & Ors. Vs. Ram Singh S/o Mohan Singh Ranawat & Anr.

¶73

.. Judgment dated 25.02.2015

¶74

12/14

¶75

the reply that suit property is not in absolute possession of both the parties. Moreso, to clarify this position, the concern Gram Sewak cum Paden Sachiv, Aidana, Panchayat Samiti, Amet prepared the Mauka Fard along with Nazari Naksha, in which it is categorically clear that Shri Ram Singh opt the patta of measuring 30x45 feet in the year 02.11.1981 as per Section 71 of the Act of 1953 in free of cost. Thereafter, he again obtain the land in acution in the year 1992 (01.09.1992) of measuring 14x44 square feet. Shri Ram Singh having and possession on both the plots but the suit property i.e. adjacent land of the plot which is obtained by Shri Ram Singh on auction is not in possession of Sh. Ram Singh Not only this, defendants Nathu Singh & his brother only put some stones in the suit property but till today this land was never allotted to any one and same is lying vacant. Moreso, while preparing the Mauka Fard, both the parties were present there and Appellants signed/thumb impression on the Mauka Fard but the son of Respondent No.1 denied to put his signature/thumb impression on the Mauka Fard. Shri Ram Singh who is not in position to walk and blind person was not present while preparing the Mauka Fard but his son was present at the time of inspection. Copies of Mauka Fard containing the Nazari Naksha, pattas of

¶76

S.B. CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO.340/2011. Nathu Singh S/o Nar Singh Ranawat & Ors. Vs. Ram Singh S/o Mohan Singh Ranawat & Anr. .. Judgment dated 25.02.2015

¶77

13/14

¶78

Respondent No.1 Ram Singh and current photographs are submitted as Annexure-A/R-1 (Colly.) . It is worthwhile to mention here that in the year 2011 as per request of concern Police Station, a Mauka Fard was also prepared and in this Mauka Fard it is also categorically revealed that suit property was never allotted to any one and belongs to Gram Panchayat only. A copy of Communication dated 05.07.2011 along with Mauka Parcha are submitted as Annexure A/R-2 (Colly.) .

¶79

5. That now in overall circumstances, it is clear that Shri Ram Singh already possessed two pattas adjacent to the suit property and both of parties claim the suit property which is admittedly Gram Panchayat land and vested in it.

¶80

It is therefore, humbly prayed, that after bare perusing the above mentioned facts, this Hon'ble court may kindly dismiss the stay petition with cost.”

¶81

Accordingly and in view of the discussion foregoing, while dismissing the present second appeal filed by the defendants namely, (1) Nathu Singh, (2) Madhu Singh, both sons of Nar Singh Ranawat, (3) Sajjan Singh S/o Nathu Singh Ranawat, and (4) Maan Singh S/o Vijay Singh Ranawat, as no substantial question of law arises out of the order of the learned First

¶82

S.B. CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO.340/2011. Nathu Singh S/o Nar Singh Ranawat & Ors. Vs. Ram Singh S/o Mohan Singh Ranawat & Anr. .. Judgment dated 25.02.2015

¶83

14/14

¶84

Appellate Court for consideration by this Court, this Court leaves it open for the concerned newly added defendant No.2 – Gram Panchayat-Aidana, Panchayat Samiti-Amet, District Rajsamand to put the disputed plot of land admeasuring 23x44 ft. to open auction. It is borne out from the map produced by the concerned Panchayat Samiti that the disputed plot of land admeasuring 23x44 is situated on the western side just adjacent to the plot of land admeasuring 14x44 ft. of the plaintiff Ram Singh, which was auctioned and for which, patta was also issued in favour of plaintiff-Ram Singh. No costs. A copy of this order be sent to the Courts below and the parties concerned forthwith.

¶85

(Dr. VINEET KOTHARI), J.

¶86

/ 25 /

¶87

/Mohan/

Nathu Singh and Ors. v. Ram Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nathu Singh and Ors. v. Ram Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lrs of Hukma Vs Suraj Mal

Dilip Kumar Vs Mool Chand

Shrawan Kumar Vs State of Raj. Th. Distt, Collector and Anr.

Bhanwar Lal Vs Kalu Ram

Giriraj Kumawat Vs Purushottam Mali

Omaram @ Om Prakash Vs Gopi Kishan