GOPAL KHATIK Vs. LD ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this writ petition is to the orders dated 13th November, 2010 rendered by Additional District Judge No.5, Jaipur City, Jaipur, whereby the learned appellate court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order dated 22nd April, 2008 rendered by Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No.4, Jaipur City, Jaipur dismissing the application filed by the plaintiff-petitioner under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC.

(2.) At the very outset it is pertinent to record that the Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of cases has consistently held that the High Court should exercise powers under Article 227 of the Constitution only in the event when the impugned orders are found to be perverse, contrary to material and they result in manifesting injustice. The Hon'ble Apex Court has also held that these powers should not be usually exercised to interfere with the pure findings of fact of the courts below.

(3.) Adverting to the facts of the instant case, it is noticed that the the plaintiff-petitioner is not the purchaser of the disputed land, whereas the land, over which the plaintiff-petitioner is said to have his adverse possession, is a reserved forest area. Learned trial court having critically analyzed the matter in detail, observed that as per the judicial pronouncements of Hon'ble Apex court, no commercial activity could be carried out in forest area, whereas the plaintiff-petitioner had been running his meet shop in the forest area and that too sans obtaining any license from the Municipal Corporation. Sans there being any documentary evidence to the effect that the plaintiff-petitioner was in use and occupation of the disputed land since last 30 years, conversely, he was found to be an encroacher over the disputed land, the learned trial court rightly held that no prima-facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss was made out in favour of the petitioner-plaintiff. This finding of the learned trial court stood affirmed by the appellate court vide order dated 13.11.2010. There is a concurrent finding of fact of both the courts below and in view thereof, this Court does not feel inclined to interfere with the said finding. The impugned orders rendered by the courts below are found to be just and proper and suffer from no infirmity. These orders are neither found to be perverse nor contrary to the material on record, hence the writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed at the threshold.