KALIM BHAI @ KALIMUDDIN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the judgments and decrees dt. 02.06.1987, 18.07.1996 and 25.09.2001 passed by the Assistant Collector, Banswara, Revenue Appellate Authority, Banswara and Board of Revenue, Rajasthan respectively.

(2.) THE brief facts are that original plaintiff Taher Ali filed a suit for permanent injunction under Section 92 A read with Section 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (in short "the Act of 1955" hereinafter) against the original defendant Dalichand alleging inter alia that the plaintiff is a recorded khatedar tenant of 2 bighas 9 biswas land comprising Arazi No. 1940, situated in Banswara and he is in actual physical possession of the aforesaid land. It was alleged that on or about 19.04.1983, the defendant Dalichand attempted to tress pass over the portion measuring 30' x 45 ' on the northern side of the said land for raising construction. On the application being preferred by the plaintiff before the Tehsildar, Banswara for stopping the encroachment over the land in possession of the petitioner, the site was inspected by the Patwari. At the time of inspection, the defendant was found raising construction. Inspite of the directions issued by the Patwari and the Tehsildar concerned, the defendant did not stop the construction and asserted that he will raise construction. The defendant claimed that the plot in question was purchased by him from the municipality and therefore, he has every right to proceed with the construction. Under these circumstances, the original plaintiff Taher Ali filed a suit for injunction against the defendant Dalichand in respect of the aforesaid land .

(3.) AFTER the trial, the suit was dismissed by the Assistant Collector, Banswara vide judgment and decree dt. 02.06.1987. The learned trial Court accepted the defendant's claim that he had purchased the plot in question from the Municipal Board vide patta No. 561 dt. 21.01.1949 and the plaintiff cannot be deemed to be in possession and he is not entitled for the decree for injunction.