CHAUHAN, J. - (1.) THE appellant-a poor widow-is pitted against the former Maharaja of Kota-the respondent before this Court. She seeks the refuge of this Court in order to protect her alleged property from the Maharaja's muscle men. She is challenging the Order dated 28. 1. 06, passed by the Additional District Judge, No. 1, Kota whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the appellant's second temporary injunction application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code (henceforth to be referred to as `the Code', for short ).
(2.) THE factual matrix of the case is rather chequered. According to the appellant, her late husband used to be a "poddar" of the Late Maharao Bhim Singhji of Kota, (henceforth to be referred to as `the Late Maharao', for short), the father of the Respondent No. 1. THE post of "poddar" used to be an office of status and confidence in the State times. It seems in 1980, agricultural land belonging to the Late Maharao, situated in Khasra No. 433, 434, 436 to 487, 491, 498/684 and 546/691, all measuring about 80 bighas, situated in Village Rampura, Tehsil Ladpura, District Kota was given to the appellant's husband for cultivation. With the end of the princely state, this land belonging to late Maharao Bhim Singh Ji came under Urban Land Ceiling Act as adopted by the Rajasthan State. THE Late Maharao approached the State Government to grant exemption of this land under Section 20 (1) of the Urban Land Ceiling Act. Consequently, the State Government exempted the said land in favour of the Khatedar vide its order dated 24. 2. 1990, but imposed a condition that the Khatedar would get a housing scheme approved by the Urban Improvement Trust, Kota (henceforth to be referred to as `the U. I. T. ', for short) and sell/allot plots to persons of weaker section of the society. THEreafter, the Late Maharao entered into an oral contract on 26. 2. 1990 with the appellant and agreed to sell the entire land, mentioned above, to her for a total consideration of Rs. 12 lacs. However, it was agreed that the responsibility of getting the scheme approved by the U. I. T. , Kota would be taken up by the Late Maharao himself. According to the appellant, the said amount of Rs. 12 lacs was paid by her to the Late Maharao. THErefore, she had performed her part of the contract. However, prior to getting the approval of the scheme from the U. I. T. , the Late Maharao expired. In his place, the respondent No. 1, Maharao Brajraj Singh took over as the next "ruler" of Kota. Although the respondent No. 1 kept on assuring the appellant that the he will obtain the approval of the scheme from the U. I. T. , but he failed to do so. In 1990, the Government of Rajasthan repealed the Urban Land Ceiling Act. THE appellant approached the respondent No. 1 for getting a sale deed executed, but he failed to do so. According to the appellant, she has been in the cultivatory possession of the said land since 1980 and she has been cultivating the land on "munafa. " With escalation of prices of land in Kota, the respondent No. 1 decided to oust the appellant from the big chunk of land. According to the appellant, on 20. 1. 2000 certain anti-social elements entered her land and tried to throw her out of the land. She filed a report with the police, which was registered as FIR No. 37/2000 for offense under Section 447 of Indian Penal Code (henceforth to be referred to as `the I. P. C. , for short ). Although, subsequently the police filed a negative Final Report, but in the negative F. R. , it clearly mentioned that "the complainant (the appellant before this Court) is in possession of the disputed land, but the legal owners of the land are the opposite parties, who have a right to enter on the land and look after the same as a natural consequence of ownership, as such there is a dispute with regard to ownership, which does not fall within the mischief of the Penal Law and as such FR is being submitted for non-occurrence and the matter being a civil nature. " Since the respondent No. 1 was unwilling to enter into a sale deed with regard to the land in dispute, the appellant filed a civil suit for specific performance along with an application for temporary injunction. In order to substantiate her case, the appellant filed, receipts for the money, which was paid by her by way of "munafa" to Thakur Prithvi Singh, who was the representative of Late Maharao for a period from 1981 to 1983. She also filed receipts issued by the Irrigation Department regarding bills of irrigation from 1991 to 2000. She further filed receipts for "lagan" (land revenue) under the signature of the Patwari to prove the fact that she is in cultivatory possession of the disputed land. Since she had made out a prima facie case in her favor, vide order dated 2. 2. 2000, the learned trial Court granted an injunction in her favor and prevented the respondents No. 1 and 2 from interfering in her peaceful cultivatory possession of the disputed land. Since the respondent No. 1 was aggrieved by the said order, he filed a Civil Misc. Appeal, which was registered as C. M. A. No. 100/2000 before this Court. Vide judgment dated 5. 7. 2002, this Court accepted the appeal and quashed and set aside the interim injunction order dated 2. 2. 2000. Though this Court had deeply entering into the merits of the case, it had made it amply clear that its observations would not influence the decision of the learned trial court. However, as the appellant was aggrieved by the judgment dated 5. 7. 2002, she filed an S. L. P. before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Vide order dated 10. 3. 2003, without entering into the merits of the case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court recorded the order as under:- " Heard. We do not find any merit in the S. L. P. It is accordingly dismissed. " Thus, the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not dismiss the SLP on merits, but dismissed it in limine.
(3.) EVEN during the pendency of the civil suit for specific performance, both the parties have engaged each other in revenue cases pending before the Assistant Collector, Kota. The revenue cases have climbed up to the Board of Revenue and come back down to the Court of Sub-Divisional Officer. During the pendency of these revenue cases, a large number of FIRs have also been filed by both the parties against each other and by third party against the parties before this Court. Therefore, the disputed land has become a bone of contention between the parties before this Court and between other persons as well. According to the appellant, on 3. 1. 2006, her daughter, Sandhya Sharma, lodged a report at Police Station Nayapura, Kota, which was accorded as a "nakal Rapat" No. 211/2006 in the daily "rojnamcha" at 7. 20 P. M. In the report, she claimed that while she was returning back from the disputed land in the evening. Mr. Manvendra Singh and others stopped her. When she inquired about their misbehavior, they told her that the land belongs to the respondent No. 1. In case she and her mother (the appellant before this Court) do not vacate the land, then forcible possession shall be taken of the land. In order to save his skin, on 9. 1. 2006, Mr. Manvendra Singh also lodged a report at Police Station Nayapura, Kota wherein he claimed that he was in the service of Late Maharao and was looking after his movable and immovable properties. He further alleged that a false case has been lodged against him and his people by Sandhya Sharma and her brother. Dinesh Sharma. After investigating both the reports, the Police filed a criminal complaint under Section 107 read with Section 116 (3) Cr. P. C. before the Additional District Magistrate, Kota on 13. 1. 2006. In this complaint, while Mr. Manvendra Singh and some of his associates have been named as party No. 1, Sandhya Sharma, her brother, Dinesh Sharma and the present appellant have been made party No. 2. After investigating the reports, the police discovered that the appellant is in possession of the disputed land and there is every likelihood of breach of public peace because of the disputes that are pending between the party No. 1 and party No. 2. On 13. 1. 2006, the appellant also filed a report at Police Station Nayapura, which was registered as FIR No. 39/2006 for offenses under Sections 143, 323, 447 and 504 IPC. IN the said report, the appellant stated that respondent No. 1 along with Mr. Ijraj Singh and other anti-social elements came armed to the disputed land and tried to dispossesses her from the said land. She further claimed that a large crowd armed with deadly weapons such as "gandasas", "deshi kattas" and sticks tried to enter the disputed land and assaulted her daughter. They also abused her with regard to her caste. Only police interference saved their lives. Since both these incidents have occurred after the decision of the SLP on 10. 3. 2003, since her life and her property were both endangered, she filed a second application for temporary injunction before the trial Court. However, vide order dated 28. 1. 2006, the learned trial Court dismissed her application. Hence, this appeal before this Court. ;