Vijay Bishnoi, J. - (1.) THE appellant has filed this appeal against the order dated 15.07.2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 3, Udaipur (for short 'the trial court' hereinafter) in Civil Misc. Case No. 06/2014, whereby the application filed by the appellant under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with section 151 CPC has been dismissed.
(2.) ALONG with suit for injunction, the appellant has filed the aforesaid application for temporary injunction while claiming that in revenue village Paneriyon -ki -Madri, Hiran Magri, Sector -6, Udaipur, a plot measuring 16x40 (2400 square feet) is situated, where the appellant has constructed a house. It is contended that the said plot is the part of Khasra No. 1135, which was transferred by the Collector, Udaipur vide order dated 15.04.1989 to the Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur and now the said land of Khasra No. 1135 is recorded as residential land in the revenue record. The appellant has claimed that as he is in possession of the said land since long, he has acquired right and title in the said plot on the basis of adverse possession and the Municipal Board, Udaipur or any other person has no right to disturb the right of the appellant in his peaceful possession. The appellant has further claimed that the Local Self Department of the State of Rajasthan had issued a circular on 24.01.2011 and declared that the possession of any person on Government land before 01.01.1991 is liable to be regularized and under the said circular, the appellant is entitled for issuance of patta in his favour by the Municipal Board, Udaipur. He has further claimed that he had filed an application before the officers of the Municipal Board for issuance of patta in his favour on 30.01.2014 and the same was registered on the same day and a public notice was issued by the Municipal Board in the Newspaper Rajasthan Patrika on 14.02.2014 inviting objections from the public at large within a period of one week. It is alleged that though the time for inviting objections was to be expired on 21.02.2014 but prior to that on 18.02.2014, the respondent Nagar Nigam had issued a notice to the appellant asking him to show cause why the house constructed on the plot in question be not demolished and he was asked to remove the possession within 24 hours. It is further alleged that the appellant was directed to submit his reply to the said notice on 19.09.2014 at 3:00 P.M. and he had submitted the reply but the Commissioner had returned the same while saying that though his case is genuine but on account of political pressure, the plot in question cannot be regularized in his favour. The appellant has claimed before the trial court that he has acquired right and title over the plot in question on account of adverse possession and he is ready to pay lawful fees for the purpose of issuance of patta and the Municipal Board, Udaipur has no legal right to dispossess him or to demolish his house and therefore, the Nagar Nigam should be restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession of the appellant till the disposal of the suit. The claim of the appellant was denied by the Municipal Board, Udaipur by filing reply to the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with section 151 CPC. It was argued by the Municipal Board that the plot in question is the property of it and at present, the same is lying vacant and the appellant is not in possession of the said plot. It is further contended that the claim of the appellant that he is in possession of the plot in question since 1965 is false because at present, the age of the appellant is about 60 years and in the year 1965 he might be of 11 -12 years and it is not believable that he is in possession of the same from the date when he was of 11 -12 years of age. It is further claimed that few months before the appellant has encroached over the said plot and started construction and the Municipal Board has every right to dispossess such trespassers. It is further claimed that plot in question is not liable to be regularized in favour of the appellant. The Municipal Board has further alleged that the son of the appellant is a Ward Member of the Municipal Board, Udaipur and in connivance with the employees of the Municipal Board, he has encroached over the said plot and also hatched a conspiracy to take possession of vacant plots adjacent to the plot in question in the name of his son. The Municipal Board has also claimed that adjacent plots to the plot in question were allotted by the Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur to several other persons and in the property register, the plot in question is mentioned as plot of the Municipal Board. On the basis of the said arguments, the Municipal Board has prayed that the application for temporary injunction filed by the appellant be dismissed.
(3.) A rejoinder to the reply of the Municipal Board was filed by the appellant, however, the trial court, after hearing the counsel for the parties, has held that the appellant has failed to prove prima facie case in his favour and, therefore, temporary injunction cannot be passed in his favour and against the respondents. While observing this, the learned trial court has dismissed the application for temporary injunction vide impugned order.;