PAPPU Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC is directed against the order dated 4/5/2016 passed by the Addl. District Judge No.1, Chittorgarh, whereby, the application filed by the appellants-plaintiffs under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 CPC read with Section 151 CPC has been rejected.

(2.) The appellants filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the respondents inter alia with the averments that the appellants were part of about 300 or more families, which were in possession of the land in question, the residents therein were all voters of Ward No.28, the electricity connection and drinking water pipelines have been given/established and a primary school is also functioning in the area. It was alleged that the District Collector without due process of law, on 23/12/2003 allotted land ad measuring 6.73 hectares comprised in Araji No.1228 under the provisions of Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Unoccupied Government Agricultural Lands for construction of Schools, Colleges, Dispensaries, Dharamshalas and other Building of Public Utility) Rules, 1963 ('the Rules'), which allotment was contrary to the Rules. It was claimed that if the allotment was not set aside, the same would affect the residents of the area inasmuch as they were sought to be dispossessed by the police authorities, who have been allotted the land in question. Based on the said averments, the declaration was sought that the allotment dated 23/12/2003 was against the law, permanent injunction against eviction of 300 families from the land in question and regularization of plaintiffs' possession. Along with the suit, an application seeking temporary injunction was filed by the appellants-plaintiffs.

(3.) A reply to the application was filed by the respondents inter alia indicating that earlier Civil Original Suit No.20/11 was filed which has been decided on 26/8/2011 and has been dismissed, the land in question has been allotted under the provisions of the Rules of 1963 to the Police Department for construction of residential houses and the same has been mutated in the revenue record and possession has also been handed over to the Police Department, at which point of time there were no encroachments. Reply was also filed by the Municipal Council inter alia indicating that the applicants have no right to file a suit and as the encroachments have been made on the land allotted to the Police Department, they have right to clear the encroachments and the applicants were not entitled to any regularization.