JITENDRA KUMAR Vs. UIT, ALWAR & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff-appellant, Jitendra Kumar, is aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 26.2.2008 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) No.1, Alwar whereby the learned Magistrate has dismissed the civil suit filed by the appellant. The appellant is equally aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 9.10.2012 passed by the Additional District Judge No.1, Alwar whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant, and has affirmed the judgment and decree dated 26.2.2008.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the appellant had filed a civil suit for permanent injunction and declaration wherein he had claimed that he is resident of Village Devkhera, Tehsil and District Alwar. Mohanlal also lives in the same village. On 21.8.1993, he and Mohanlal had entered into an exchange agreement whereby the possession of the plot belonging to Mohanlal was given to him and in turn, the appellant gave the possession of his plot to Mohanlal. He further claimed that since 1993, he has been in peaceful possession of the said plot. According to the appellant, on 27.5.1980, and on 26.5.1980 Mohanlal's father, Chunnilal, was served with a notice by the Tehsildar, Alwar. However subsequently, the proceedings were dropped by the UIT, Alwar. Therefore, he further claimed that Chunnilal, his son, Mohanlal, and through them, the appellant himself has been peacefully enjoying the possession of the said plot. Therefore, he has been in adverse possession of the said plot for over thirty years. Prior to filing of the civil suit, he had also constructed a house in the plot. But despite his peaceful possession, the defendants, the UIT, Alwar, plans to construct a road through his plot. Therefore, he needs to be protected from being dispossessed and from his land as it is being taken by the UIT. Lastly, that on 13.8.2001, the UIT issued a notice to him directing him to vacate the plot and threatened him that in case he does not, his house shall be demolished. Hence, the suit for declaration and permanent injunction.

(3.) On the other hand, the UIT submitted its written statement and claimed that the plot in question is shown as part of Siwai Chak Abadi land in the revenue records. It further claimed that it has a duty to construct a road for the benefit of the public at large. Since the land is Siwai Chak, it belongs to the government. Moreover, according to the defendants, the plaintiff has not been able to prove the ownership or the possession over the said land for over thirty years. Thus, he is not entitled to a declaration or permanent injunction.