Gopal Krishan Vyas, J. - (1.) INSTANT second appeal has been filed under Section 100, C.P.C. by the defendants against the judgment and decree dt. 10.11.2006 passed by the Addl. District Judge No. 3, Udaipur in Civil Appeal No. 64/2004, whereby, learned first appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree dt. 04.08.2004 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), City (South), Udaipur in Civil Original Suit No. 153/1999. Brief facts of the case are that a suit was filed by plaintiff Smt. Ganga Bai Menaria, who died during the pendency of the suit, for permanent injunction against the defendant -appellants pleading inter alia that she is in possession of the plot situated in village Madri Savina Road. Total land of the plot is 35 yd. x 38 yd. i.e., 1330 Sq. yd. The said plot is of her ownership and possession and there is construction upon 20 ft. x 30 ft. area of the plot.
(2.) ACCORDING to the pleadings of the plaintiff, though the respondents have nothing to do with the said plot but the Tehsildar, U.I.T., Udaipur issued a notice to the power of attorney holder of the plaintiff Smt. Ganga Bai under Section 92 for vacating the possession and it was apprehended that they will demolish the construction raised on the said plot. It was pleaded before the Court that the said plot was purchased by her from the Gram Panchayat Titardi on 13.12.1959 and boundary wall was constructed in 1960, therefore, there was no right left with the defendants to demolish the construction and take possession from the plaintiff. A written -statement was filed and all the allegations were refuted by the defendants and it was specifically stated that the land in question is situated in Tehsil Girwa village Madri Paneriyan, Aaraji No. 1165 (old khasra 838) and, since long, the said land is 'gochar' meant for grazing of the village cattle. It is also stated that there was no right with the Gram Panchayat to allot the land and it is specifically stated further that there was no possession in favour of the plaintiff and she has recently tried to make encroachment over the plot in question and illegally constructed a room in the form of a shop and, as and when, information was received in the U.I.T. with regard to raising construction, they proceeded to take action in accordance with law, therefore, as per the defendant -appellants, there was no right accrued to the plaintiff to stay in possession because the said land is 'gochar' land in respect of which no patta could be issued by any authority.
(3.) ACCORDING to the appellant -defendants, the said land was later on transferred to the U.I.T. because it came to fall within urban area. Therefore, after transfer of the land to the U.I.T. when it became urban area, all powers were left with the U.I.T. and nobody was entitled to make encroachment over the land.;