STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. BAKSHUNATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANTS /defendants have preferred this first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'CPC') for assailing the impugned judgment and decree dated 19th of September 2012 passed by the learned District Judge, Rajsamand (for short, 'learned trial Court').

(2.) THE respondents plaintiffs laid a civil suit for damages against the appellants for a sum of Rs.1,10,000/ , inter alia, on the ground that a clay built (Kuccha) wall, which was constructed on the Khatedari land of the plaintiffs, was illegally demolished by the appellants by presuming it to be an encroachment. The suit was contested by the appellants and the averments contained in the plaint were denied. In the return, the appellants pleaded that the respondents plaintiffs have designed the suit cleverly for seeking declaration from the Court that part of the 253 bigha land, situated at village Ghanvera (Kanvera), of Araji No.2, measuring 10 bighas, be declared as his Khatedari land, therefore, such a relief cannot be granted to the respondents. Alleging specifically in the written statement that there was illegal encroachment of the respondents on the land in question and the same has been removed by the appellants after following due process of law, it was prayed that the suit merits dismissal.

(3.) LEARNED Government Counsel Mr. Sandeep Bhandawat has argued that the learned Court below has not thrashed out the matter in its entirety, and appreciation of evidence by the learned Court below is also not proper, and therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be reversed and set aside. Assailing the impugned judgment, the learned counsel would urge that the entire proceeding for demolition of the wall in question was carried out in accordance with law, and therefore, in these circumstances no motive can be attributed to the authorities of the appellant so as to saddle damages on the State. Mr. Bhandawat has also urged that the learned Court below having found that it was a bonafide action of the appellants, it was not desirable for it to award damages to the respondents.