JAINENDRA KUMAR RANKA,J. - (1.) The appellant-defendant State has preferred this second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 30.5.2012 passed by Addl. District Judge, Khetri, whereby the learned first appellate court has affirmed the judgment and decree dated 29.11.2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) Khetri.
(2.) The facts, in brief, relevant for disposal of this second appeal are that plaintiff Chhajuram filed a civil suit against the defendants State for grant of perpetual injunction in respect of his shop in which he claims to have been running a porter house/eatery for the last 35 years and on the basis of his old possession he claims to have been given a patta issued by the Collector, Khetri. It is claimed in the plaint that treating his possession on the disputed land/shop as unauthorised/encroacher, vide notice dt 7.11.2005 defendant no.4 initiated proceedings u/s 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. In response to the notice the plaintiff submitted documents to prove his right and requested to cancel the notice, but it is claimed in the plaint that under some political pressure, defendant no.4 issued order of dispossession of the plaintiff, against which the plaintiff filed appeal whereupon the order of dispossession was remanded back to respondent no.4 with directions for taking measurements of the site, which is still pending. The plaintiff claims that even after his repeated requests, respondent no.4 is not getting the site measured. Plaintiff claimed in the plaint that he has not encroached upon any land instead after leaving some area of the land of which he is having patta, he has constructed the shop, and the defendants are illegally bent upon to demolish his shop. Therefore, he sought injunction as aforesaid restraining the defendants from demolishing his shop.
(3.) Defendants in their written statement denied many of the averments made in the plaint and claimed that the front portion of the shop has illegally been extended encroaching upon the road limit on the gair mumkin land, and claimed that due to his encroachment, construction of public drain (ukyh) on the roadside has been obstructed and has come to a stand still. It is also claimed that after giving proper notice the dispossession order was issued, which can in no way be called to be illegal and also claimed that the plaintiff has filed the suit on the basis of wrong facts, and ultimately prayed for dismissal of the suit.;