RATANLAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against judgment and decree dated dated 21.09.2012 passed by Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Hanumangarh, whereby, the appeal filed by the appellant has been dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 19.02.2002 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hanumangarh has been upheld.

(2.) THE facts in brief may be noticed thus : the appellant filed a suit on 08.05.2000 for declaratory decree and permanent injunction with the averments that the plaintiff had trespassed on the land described in para 2 of the plaint in the year 1960 -61 and has raised construction regarding a house and was staying there; the area was approximately 35x45 ft.; it was claimed that around 1979 the Municipality, Hanumangarh tried to dispossess the plaintiff and several other persons, who were in possession of land, which was resisted and thereafter a meeting was held on 28.06.1979, wherein, it was given in writing that those in possession would be given plots of land in Sectors 1, 2 and 3 of Hanumangarh Town and on 31.03.1994 a lottery was drawn, where the plaintiff was allotted plot No. 170, however, despite repeated requests, no steps have been taken in this regard; it was claimed that the plaintiff has acquired title by adverse possession; the respondents were bound by principles of promissory estoppel and only after allotting the alternative land the possession can be taken from them; ultimately, it was prayed that the defendants be restrained from interfering in their possession and/or dispossessing them from the suit land.

(3.) THE trial court framed four issues and evidence was led by the parties. However, the issues relating to adverse possession and permanent injunction were dropped as during pendency of the proceedings the appellant -plaintiff had been dispossessed. The only issue, which was pressed, related to allotment of alternative land. While deciding the said issue, the trial court came to the conclusion that the plea regarding promissory estoppel raised by the plaintiff had no basis and, therefore, no injunction as prayed for could be granted and dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff.