Dismissed

Bharat Singh v. Beg Raj

Rajasthan HC11 May 2023CSA/155/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court considered an appeal against a decree that declared a patta dated 14.07.1960 null and void as it was issued over public road land. The court upheld the lower courts' concurrent factual findings that the document was invalid because it covered a public way. The appeal was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The appeal, stay petition, and all applications were dismissed. The declaration that the 1960 patta is null and void remains affirmed.

Bharat Singh Vs Beg Raj — Partition | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023/RJJD/014691]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 155/2012

¶4

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

¶5

----Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

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

¶8

The Gram Panchayat Ramgarh Panchayat Samiti

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

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

¶11

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

¶12

Judgment

¶13

11/05/2023

¶14

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.

¶15

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]

[CSA-155/2012]

(2 of 3)

ancestors to be null and void and to restrain them from user of the land of the common road/path (गली).

¶20

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.

¶21

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.

¶22

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]

[CSA-155/2012]

(3 of 3)

counter claim of the defendant was decreed and the patta dated 14.07.1960 was declared to be null and void.

¶27

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.

¶28

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.

¶29

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 .

¶30

Stay petition and all the applications also stand dismissed.

¶31

(REKHA BORANA),J

¶32

40-T.Singh/-

Bharat Singh v. Beg Raj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bharat Singh v. Beg Raj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kanwar Lal Vs Lrs of Bhanwar Lal

Jhabbar Singh Charan Vs State of Rajasthan

Shanker Lal Vs Bhartiya Janta Party and Ors.

M/S Singhvi Stones P Ltd. Vs Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd.

Gram Panchayat Bicchiwara Vs Durga Devi

Hariram Vs Lrs of Balu Ram