Dismissed

Municipal Council, Pali v. Abhishek Soni

Rajasthan HC4 May 2023CSA/224/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This second appeal challenged a decree for permanent injunction. The appellant argued the allotted plot was facility area land. The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding lower courts' rejection of the defendants' evidence and specific admissions by a witness that the plan was erroneous and unproved.

What did the court decide?

The second appeal and pending applications are dismissed.

Municipal Council, Pali Vs Abhishek Soni — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023/RJJD/013452]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 224/2022

¶4

Municipal Council, Pali, Through Its Commissioner.

¶5

----Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Abhishek Soni S/o Dr. Laxmi Narayan Soni, R/o 1A, Friends Colony, Pali, District Pali. (Raj.)

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through District Collector, Pali (Raj.)

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rajesh Parihar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Surendra Thanvi

¶11

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

¶12

Order

¶13

04/05/2023

¶14

The present second appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 28.05.2022 passed by the District Judge, Pali in Civil Appeal No.31/2015 affirming the judgment and decree dated 03.03.2015 passed by the Civil Judge, Pali in Civil Original No.22/2012 whereby the suit for permanent injunction as preferred by the plaintiff was decreed. 2. The case of the Municipal Corporation is that the Courts below erred in decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiff as it was established on record that the plot allotted to the plaintiff by the Society i.e. Mahaveer Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. was on the facility area which could not have been allotted in contravention to the layout plan as sanctioned by the Town Planner.

¶15

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the document A2, the map approved by the Town Planner, exhibited

[2023/RJJD/013452]

[CSA-224/2022]

(2 of 4)

on record by the defendant, clearly proved that the land allotted to the plaintiff was of the facility area.

¶20

Both the Courts below specifically concluded that the document Exhibit A2 which was a photocopy of the map alleged to be approved by the Town Planner was not proved on record by the defendant and therefore, the same could not have been relied upon. The Court, while reaching to the said finding, appreciated the complete evidence specifically statements of DW.1-Kunj Bihari who specifically admitted that he was not aware as to who approved the document Exhibit A2. He further admitted that the said map no where mentioned to be of the residential colony of Mahaveer Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. He also admitted that the map was not in consonance with the actual position on site and was erroneous. He also admitted that the land in question was not a government land.

¶21

The specific admissions as made by D.W.1 being relevant and crucial, are reproduced hereunder:

¶22

“……… ;g ckr lgh gS fd izn’kZ , 2 uD’kk fdu nLrkostksa ds vk/kkj ij fdlus o dc rS;kj gqvk eq>s irk ugha gSA ;g lgh gS fd izn’kZ , 2 uD’kk vly ugha gSaA ”

¶23

“……… ;g ckr lgh gS fd izn’kZ , 2 uD’kk lgh cuk gqvk ugh gSA ekSds dh fLFkfr [kljk ds foijhr fLFkfr esa izn’kZ , 2 uD’kk cuk gqvk gSaA ”

¶24

“……… ;g lgh gS fd izn’kZ , 2 uD’kk esa ;g dgh ugha fy[kk gS fd ;g uD’kk vkuUn uxj dk gSA ;g ckr lgh gS fd izn’kZ , 2 esa ftl [kljk uEcj dk mYys[k gS mu izR;sd [kljk uEcj dk fdruk fdruk {ks=Qy gS ;g ntZ ugha gSaA izn’kZ , 2 uD’kk dqy fdruh Hkwfe dk cuk gqvk gS ;g Hkh muesa ntZ ugha gSaA izn’kZ , 2 uD’kk fdlds fuosnu ij cuk;k x;k ;g Hkh ntZ ugha gSaA ”

[2023/RJJD/013452]

[CSA-224/2022]

(3 of 4)

“……… ;g lgh gS fd izn’kZ , 2 uD’ks esa oknxzLr Hkw[k.M lqfo/kk {ks= es vk;k gqvk ;g ntZ ugha gSaA ;g esjh tkudkjh esa ugha gSa fd oknxzLr Hkw[k.M dks lqfo/kk {ks= ds :i esa mi;ksx esa fy;k x;k gks vkSj ml gsrq uxj ifj"kn~ }kjk dksbZ lqfo/kk miyC/k djokbZ xbZ gks ,slk dksbZ nLrkost eSaus o uxj ifj"kn~ us bl i=koyh esa is’k fd;k ;k ughaA ”

¶29

“……… ;g lgh gS fd ckm.Mh lqfo/kk {ks= esa cuh gqbZ gksus ckcr~ dksbZ nLrkost gks is’k ugha fd;s gS ;g lfg gS fd uxj ifj"kn~ oknh esa bl oknxzLr Hkw[k[k.M dh pkj nhokjh rksM+ dj mlds dCts esa gLr{ksi djus dks vkenk gSaA ”

¶30

In view of the specific admissions of the defendant witness and the material available on record, it is clear that although the defendants pleaded that the land allotted to the plaintiff was a land earmarked for facility area, no evidence/document in support of the said contention was placed on record. The document A2 alleged to be an approved plan/map was also only a photocopy which did not even mention the name of the Society to which it pertained. The burden to prove that the land belongs to the facility area was clearly upon the defendant and it is admitted on record that no document except the document A2 was exhibited on behalf of the defendant to prove the same. The document Exh.A2 has not been found to be proved on record and therefore, both the Courts below rightly declined to place reliance on the same. Further, it is also proved on record that the plaintiff was allotted the plot in question by the Society and after the said allotment, he deposited the requisite amounts qua the conversion and penalty to the competent authority. The findings as reached

(4 of 4)

[2023/RJJD/013452]

[CSA-224/2022]

by both the Courts below are totally in consonance with the evidence and the material available on record.

¶35

In view of the same and in view of the fact that the findings are totally factual in nature, this Court does not find any substantial question of law in the present appeal.

¶36

The present second appeal is therefore, dismissed .

¶37

All the pending applications also stand dismissed.

¶38

(REKHA BORANA),J

¶39

11-T.Singh/-

Municipal Council, Pali v. Abhishek Soni

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Municipal Council, Pali v. Abhishek Soni

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

Mahendra Kumar Singh Vs Shanti Devi Rajpurohit

Lalit Kumar and Anr. Vs Heera Lal

Gulam Rasul Khan Vs State and Anr.

Hemendra Joshi Vs Idrish Mohd.

Rajendra Khatri Vs Urban Improvement Trust

Narendra Singh Vs Omprakash