STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. PRATAP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dtd. 19/3/1997 whereby the learned Appellate Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff by setting aside the judgment and decree dtd. 31/3/1993.

(2.) In the suit, plaintiff had claimed that the suit was simplicitor for permanent injunction averring that the plaintiff's restaurant in the form of cabin was situated near Bus Stand, Jassa Kheda. The patta of the land was issued on 17/2/1975 by Tehsildar, Bheem and since then the plaintiff had been running a hotel having the required electricity and water connection. On 24/7/1991, when the plaintiff was as usually earning his livelihood, the defendant asked him to remove his cabin and if he do not remove then they would remove with the help of bulldozer. The plaintiff had sent a notice to the defendants. On 30/7/1991, when the plaintiff returned back to Bheem, the defendant got some signatures obtained on blank papers and, therefore, the plaintiff could not take any advice on the same. Further, there was no scheme of widening of the National Highway and with malafide intention the defendants were trying to dispossess him by removing the cabin and lastly prayed for issuing permanent injunction against the defendants.

(3.) The defendant filed the reply denying the averments of the plaint and contended that the patta cannot be issued for the land which is recorded as State Government land in revenue record. Particularly, case bearing No.79/69 has already been decided against the plaintiff on 15/10/1989 wherein he had been found as an encroacher. It was further contended that in the so called patta the land has been shown as khasra No.11 whereas the present cabin which is existing on the disputed place is recorded as khasra No.3759. The defendants are, therefore, entitled for removal of encroachment. Only notice was given and there was no personal enmity with the plaintiff. Moreover, it was argued by the defendants that they were not demolishing the cabin but were only shifting the cabin from the territory of the National Highway and other people who are coming within the territory of the National Highway which is 100 ft. wide have been given such similar notice and thus, prayed that the suit may be rejected.