STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. HARPHOOL SINGH DEAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State of Rajasthan, who lost before the Courts below, is the appellant before us, challenging the summary dismissal of a second appeal by a learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court filed in SB Civil S. A. No. 157/94 and thereby affixing seal of approval to the judgment and decree passed in favour of respondent-plaintiff.

(2.) Having regard to the nebulous manner in which relevant facts are found to have been stated in the judgments of the trial court as well as the first appellate court, we thought it fit and necessary to look into the plaint of which an English translated copy as made for the respondents has been furnished by the learned counsel, appearing before us. The suit property is said to be a plot of land measuring north-south 60 ft. and east-west 40 ft. situated on Nohar-Bhadra Road at Nohar. As per the version of the claim in the plaint he was holding possession of the property since time immemorial by fencing it and in the year 1955 the plaintiff constructed a house on the disputed plot and started living therein. The fact that in the year 1955, he constructed the rooms, kitchen etc. , and started living there, is found asserted more than once, claiming at the same time that he was in occupation since long before without specifiying anywhere how long before. Further, assertions made in the plaint are that he got electricity connection and water connection in 1965 and 1974 respectively, producing photocopies of an electricity bill of 1965 and water bill of 1981. A grievance has also been made that at the instance of Area Patwari, Nohar, the A. D. M/secretary, Mandi Development Committee, issued a notice calling upon him to vacate the encroachment to which he claims to have submitted his defence. Since, the A. D. M. without properly appreciating the claims of the plaintiff, ordered eviction, the plaintiff was forced to file the suit and as per the case of the plaintiff projected in the plaint, he by his long possession has become the owner of the plot of land and not only the order passed by the A. D. M. is illegal, null and void but his possession has to be protected by the issue of appropriate orders of permanent injunction.

(3.) The case of the defendant was that the encroachment was made for the first time only in the year 1981 and the plaintiff was not in possession of the plot before and that no connection of electricity and water was obtained by the plaintiff as claimed during the years 1965 and 1974 respectively and the order of the A. D. M. directing the removal of encroachment is absolutely legal, having been passed in exercise of the powers under Sections 22 and 24 of the Rajasthan Colonisation Act, 1954. Want of notice under Section 80 Civil Procedure Code has also been urged as an infirmity to non-suit the plaintiff.