Mohammad Rafiq, J. - (1.) THIS is defendant's second appeal assailing the judgment & decree dated 14/7/2011 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Khetri whereby, he dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree dated 8/5/2008 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Khetri decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiff. The learned trial court held that patta was issued in favour of the plaintiff respondent by the Municipal Board as far as back 7/6/1985. Witness PW2 proved that plaintiff did not have any house and that though his parents' house is situated close by but he has no share in the said house as his brother has the share. Plaintiff constructed the house with due permission from the Municipal Board, which fact has been proved by the witnesses of both, the plaintiff and defendant. Gyarsilal (DW1) LDC in the Municipal Board, who maintained all the records relating to regularization and alleged possession has also proved these facts. Patta issued by the Municipal Board was based on the Sanad issued for the land size of 330 square yards by the Tehsildar Peepli in Samwat 1976, which in fact was proof of his possession over the disputed land for last 50 years in Khasra No. 1705.
(2.) THE contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the land was transferred to the Municipal Board and therefore no sanad could be issued by Tehsildar. It is contended that when the patta issued by the Municipal Board on 7/6/1985 was cancelled by the District Collector vide order dated 27/3/1995 as this was nazul land, and that the Tehsildar had no power to issue the sanad on 29/6/1976 and as such, the subsequent patta, which was issued by the Municipal Board became ineffective. The order passed by the District Collector attained finality. Nazul Land has been defined in Section 3(1)(1b) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, which belongs to the State. As per the notification dated 5/10/1971, the Tehsildar has no power to issue a patta in Municipal Area and therefore the patta issued by the Tehsildar in Municipal area regarding a nazul land is void ab initio. Question that the learned trial court as well as appellate court has decided the suit/appeal on factual finding it is not in dispute that Tehsildar issued a patta in favour of the plaintiff as far as back 29/6/1976 on his satisfaction that he was in possession over the disputed land, which according to the plaintiff was 40 years old possession in Khasra No. 1705. The sanad was issued by Tehsildar for 300 square yards of land and on that basis the Municipal Board issued the patta on 7/6/1985 and thereafter the plaintiff raised construction with permission of the Municipal Board. He is presently residing in the disputed house for last several decades. Cancellation of that patta by the District Collector in the year 1995 does not in any manner affect the rights of the plaintiff vis -a -vis the Municipal Board and adjudicatory powers of the Court province upon the controversy and right of the plaintiff. Plaintiff in the present case prayed for injunction and trial court has granted the same keeping in view not only the prima -facie case made out in his favour but also upon considering balance of convenience and irreparable loss maintained by the court that if injunction is not granted, he would suffer irreparable loss. The appellate court has agreed with that view of the trial court. There is no justification for making interference with such concurrent findings. No substantial question of law arises for consideration of this Court. The appeal is dismissed.;