In this S.B. Civil Second Appeal, the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur dismissed the appeal against the rejection of the plaintiffs' suit for permanent injunction challenging encroachments, holding that lower courts' factual findings were undisputed and no substantial question of law arose.
The appeal was dismissed and all pending applications were disposed of.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[2023/RJJD/010881]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 184/2022
Versus
Municipal Council, Sirohi, Through Commissioner, Municipal Council, Tehsil And Distt. Sirohi.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rajesh Shah
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA Order
19/04/2023
under:-
“vk;k oknhx.k fo:} çfroknh bl çdkj dh LFkkbZ o vkKkid fu"ks/kkKk çkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS fd çfroknh okn ds lyaXu ofj"B uxj fu;kstd] tks/kiqj {ks=] tks/kiqj }kjk vuqeksfnr o Loh—r uD'kk vuqlkj HkkVdMk eksgYyk esa usg: ikdZ ds lkeus xyh ls gksdj ,yvkbZlh dk;kZy;] vEcsMdj lfdZy] fo/kqr foHkkx] u;kokl LVs.M tkus gsrq mijksä jkLrs ij ls reke vfrØe.k ,oa U;qlsUl dks vius [kpsZ ij gVkdj mijksä jkLrs dks [kqyokdj iwjh pkSMkbZ esa lQkbZ ,oa oknh o vketu ds vkokxeu gsrq lqpk: djs o U;wlsUl gVkosa rFkk Hkfo"; esa Hkh mijksä LFky ij fdlh çdkj dk voS/k dCtk o U;qlsUl dkfjr u fd;k tkosA”
[2023/RJJD/010881]
[CSA-184/2022]
(2 of 3)
50 ft. was existing on the site with the same width and therefore, the same had not been encroached upon. Secondly , it was an admitted case of the defendant itself that the temporary encroachments vide temporary tents were made by nomadic people and they themselves removed the said encroachments within certain point of time. The other encroachments had also been removed by the defendant Municipal Council and no encroachment or nuisance existed anymore on the site.
i) the plaintiffs did not plead the specific details of the persons who encroached upon the land;
ii) to whom the complaint, if any, regarding the said encroachment was made and on which date the complaints were made;
iii) the notice, as pleaded by the plaintiffs to be served upon the defendants through their lawyer, was also not exhibited
iv) no photographs of the site were placed on record to show/prove any encroachment or nuisance;
[2023/RJJD/010881]
[CSA-184/2022]
(3 of 3)
v) Although pleaded that the neighbours had also complained of encroachments, no such neighbour or complaint was a part of the evidence.
(REKHA BORANA),J
11-AbhishekS/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the concurrent findings of the Courts below on the existence of encroachment warrant interference in this second appeal?
Ratanlal S/o Shivlal Ji and Ors.
Municipal Council, Sirohi
Rekha Borana
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
