Mohammad Rafiq, J. - (1.) THIS is plaintiffs second appeal filed against judgment and decree dt. 10.05.2012 of learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Sikar, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 1/2012, whereby he dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree dt. 12.08.2011 of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Ringus, District Sikar, whereby the suit for permanent injunction filed by plaintiff was dismissed. Plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants Nagar Palika, Ringus, stating that he owned and possessed a plot in Ward No. 5 of Ringus town and constructed a shop of west facing, in which he has been doing business of grocery items for last forty years. The said land never remained in possession or occupation of the Nagar Palika. The plaintiff is paying the amount under the Provident Fund Act for the land, to the defendant -respondents. The respondents are now claiming it to be a government land and are adamant to dispossess the appellant.
(2.) THE defendants contested the claim of the plaintiff about long possession over the disputed land. It was pleaded by the defendants that the plaintiff has encroached upon the municipal land on or around February, 2001. It was denied that the plaintiff was running a grocery shop therein. It was also denied that the defendants ever recovered the money from the plaintiff under the PF Act for that shop. The plaintiff illegally encroached upon the disputed land on or around February, 2001 and raised a kaccha construction using kaccha bricks thereon in April, 2001. Earlier, he had similarly encroached upon this land in June, 1989 by putting slabs and wooden kiosk, which was removed by the Nagar Palika on 21.06.1989. Thereafter, a nala was constructed over the land. The alleged shop, in fact, is being run by his son from pucca house of the plaintiff situated towards west of the road. Learned trial Court framed four issues. Issues no.1 and 2, whether the plaintiff was in possession of the disputed land prior to constitution of the Municipal Board in Ringus and whether he was entitled to have any permanent injunction, were decided together. Learned trial Court concluded that a pucca nala is constructed beneath the encroachment made by the appellant. The plaintiff produced four witnesses in support of his case. Mohammad Sharif (PW -1), in his cross -examination, admitted that patta of that land was issued in favour of one Guljarilal Tiwari by Gram Panchayat, Ringus, which is Exhibit A -1. He admitted that there is railway boundary in the eastern of the disputed house. He admitted that there was bus stand near the disputed place, for the buses which use to ply to Khatu. It is also admitted that in the western side of the disputed place he has a pucca house after the public way. He has also admitted that the disputed land has sewer pipe line below it, which was constructed in 1989. He has admitted that one Gulab Khan had made an encroachment in the northern side of the disputed place by placing a kiosk and slabs, but the same was removed by the Municipal Board at the time of construction of pucca nala. He has also admitted that at the time when pucca nala was constructed and his encroachment was removed by the Municipal Board, he filed a suit before the Civil Court and that he has not purchased this land from anyone. He has also admitted that he has a meat shop in his house situated in western side. He has further admitted that there is a public way in the southern side of the disputed place which goes towards eastern side upto the railway boundary.
(3.) PW -2 Mohammad Gafoor in cross -examination has admitted there Nagar Palika has constructed sewer pipe line beneath the disputed land. There was bus stand near the disputed place for the bus which used to ply towards Khatu. He has also admitted that before the pucca nala could be constructed, the encroachment made over the disputed land by plaintiff and Gulab Qureshi was removed. The plaintiff has a pucca house in the western side of the disputed plot after the public way. He has admitted that the plaintiff has not purchased the disputed land from anyone or from the Municipal Board, but has made encroachment over it by putting his kiosk only because others also made similar encroachments.;