CSA – 411/07-Balu Ram vs. Nagarpalika Mandal, Rajsamand, (2)CMA No.71/07-Balu Ram vs. Nagarpalika Mandal, Rajsamand, (3)CMA-72/07-(Balu Ram vs. Nagarpalika Mandal, Rajsamand), (4)CMA-73/07- (Kamlesh vs. Nagarpalika Mandal, Rajsamand), (5)CMA-74/07-(Shri Ram Lal vs. Nagarpalika Mandal, Rajsamand), (6)CSA-382/07-(Nand Lal & Anr.vs. Nagarpalika Mandal, Rajsamand), (7)CSA-412/07-(Shri Ram Lal vs. Nagarpalika Mandal, Rajsamand), (8)CSA-413/07(Kamlesh vs. Nagarpalika Mandal, Rajsamand), (9)CSA-414/07-(Balu Ram vs. Nagarpalika Mandal, Rajsamand) Judgment dt:16/9/08 1/6 S.B.Civil Second Appeal No.411/2007 (Balu Ram vs. Nagarpalika Mandal, Rajsamand) S.B.Civil Misc. Application No.71/2007 (Balu Ram vs. Nagarpalika Mandal, Rajsamand) S.B.Civil Misc. Application No.72/2007 (Balu Ram vs. Nagarpalika Mandal, Rajsamand) S.B.Civil Misc. Application No.73/2007 (Kamlesh vs. Nagarpalika Mandal, Rajsamand) S.B.Civil Misc. Application No.74/2007 (Shri Ram Lal vs. Nagarpalika Mandal, Rajsamand) S.B.Civil Second Appeal No.382/2007 (Nand Lal & Anr.vs. Nagarpalika Mandal, Rajsamand) S.B.Civil Second Appeal No.412/2007 (Shri Ram Lal vs. Nagarpalika Mandal, Rajsamand) S.B.Civil Second Appeal No.413/2007 (Kamlesh vs. Nagarpalika Mandal, Rajsamand) S.B.Civil Second Appeal No.414/2007 (Balu Ram vs. Nagarpalika Mandal, Rajsamand) DATE OF ORDER : 16/9/2008 HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr.S.P.Sharma, for the appellants. Mr.Yashwant Mehta, for the respondent-Municipal Board. 1. Against the concurrent rejection of suit for injunction by two courts below, these second appeals have been filed by the plaintiffs claiming injunction against threatened dispossession by the Municipal Board, Rajsamand from the plots in question. 2. The plaintiffs claimed before the learned trial court that they CSA – 411/07-Balu Ram vs. Nagarpalika Mandal, Rajsamand, (2)CMA No.71/07-Balu Ram vs. Nagarpalika Mandal, Rajsamand, (3)CMA-72/07-(Balu Ram vs. Nagarpalika Mandal, Rajsamand), (4)CMA-73/07- (Kamlesh vs. Nagarpalika Mandal, Rajsamand), (5)CMA-74/07-(Shri Ram Lal vs. Nagarpalika Mandal, Rajsamand), (6)CSA-382/07-(Nand Lal & Anr.vs. Nagarpalika Mandal, Rajsamand), (7)CSA-412/07-(Shri Ram Lal vs. Nagarpalika Mandal, Rajsamand), (8)CSA-413/07(Kamlesh vs. Nagarpalika Mandal, Rajsamand), (9)CSA-414/07-(Balu Ram vs. Nagarpalika Mandal, Rajsamand) Judgment dt:16/9/08 2/6 were allotted the plots in question measuring 60'x40' by Gram Panchayat, Dhoinda on 3/11/1972 for a sum of Rs.101/- and since then they are in possession of the said plot. In the year 1977 the said area of Gram Panchayat, Dhoinda was included within the municipal limit of Rajasamand and as soon as said Municipal Board, Rajsamand gave a public notice that they would remove the encroachment from the public land, the plaintiffs filed the said suits. The courts below have found that pattas issued in favour of plaintiffs were forged and the record of Gram Panchayat, which stood transferred to Municipal Board, Rajsamand, did not disclose any such record of issuing pattas in favour of plaintiffs and even D.W.2 Champa Lal, the then Sarpanch, who is said to have issued said pattas, denied having issued any pattas in favour of plaintiffs. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that pattas in question were not forged and procedure for cancellation of said pattas issued in favour of plaintiffs was never undertaken either by the Gram Panchayat or by Municipal Board, Rajsamand. The receipts of payment Ex.A/1 was very much on record and, therefore, the CSA – 411/07-Balu Ram vs. Nagarpalika Mandal, Rajsamand, (2)CMA No.71/07-Balu Ram vs. Nagarpalika Mandal, Rajsamand, (3)CMA-72/07-(Balu Ram vs. Nagarpalika Mandal, Rajsamand), (4)CMA-73/07- (Kamlesh vs. Nagarpalika Mandal, Rajsamand), (5)CMA-74/07-(Shri Ram Lal vs. Nagarpalika Mandal, Rajsamand), (6)CSA-382/07-(Nand Lal & Anr.vs. Nagarpalika Mandal, Rajsamand), (7)CSA-412/07-(Shri Ram Lal vs. Nagarpalika Mandal, Rajsamand), (8)CSA-413/07(Kamlesh vs. Nagarpalika Mandal, Rajsamand), (9)CSA-414/07-(Balu Ram vs. Nagarpalika Mandal, Rajsamand) Judgment dt:16/9/08 3/6 injunction was wrongly refused by courts below and substantial questions of law are involved in the present second appeals. 4. These arguments of learned counsel for the appellant Mr. S.P.Sharma are emphatically refuted by Mr.Yashwant Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the Municipal Board, Rajsamand. Mr. Yashwant Mehta submitted that against the concurrent findings of two courts that pattas in question were forged and “फर", therefore, the plaintiffs were not entitled to any injunction against the Municipal Board and no substantial questions of law arise in the matter. He, further submitted that plaintiffs had filed misc. applications before this Court under Order 41 Rule 27 on the ground that on the basis of similar patta issued in favour of one Narain Lal, the learned trial court had decreed the suit for injunction on 29/1/1999 namely suit no.123/95 (Narain Lal vs. Municipal Board, Rajsamand) and appeal of the Municipal Board was also dismissed on 27/7/2000 and this happened because the Municipal Board failed to produce any record and evidence before the learned courts below in that matter. However, he submitted that that could not furnish any ground for grant of any CSA – 411/07-Balu Ram vs. Nagarpalika Mandal, Rajsamand, (2)CMA No.71/07-Balu Ram vs. Nagarpalika Mandal, Rajsamand, (3)CMA-72/07-(Balu Ram vs. Nagarpalika Mandal, Rajsamand), (4)CMA-73/07- (Kamlesh vs. Nagarpalika Mandal, Rajsamand), (5)CMA-74/07-(Shri Ram Lal vs. Nagarpalika Mandal, Rajsamand), (6)CSA-382/07-(Nand Lal & Anr.vs. Nagarpalika Mandal, Rajsamand), (7)CSA-412/07-(Shri Ram Lal vs. Nagarpalika Mandal, Rajsamand), (8)CSA-413/07(Kamlesh vs. Nagarpalika Mandal, Rajsamand), (9)CSA-414/07-(Balu Ram vs. Nagarpalika Mandal, Rajsamand) Judgment dt:16/9/08 4/6 injunction in favour of present appellants because in the present case Municipal Board had fully contested the suit and produced the record of Gram Panchayat as well as defence witness including the then Sarpanch of the same Gram Panchayat and thus established before the courts below that plaintiffs were not entitled to any injunction as pattas in question were found to be forged and "फर". 5. Having heard learned counsels and perused the record, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question really arises in the present appeals. The substantial question of law framed at the time of admission of these second appeals is required to be answered in negative. This Court while admitting the second appeal on 15/11/2007 had framed the following substantial question of law:- “Whether both the courts below committed error of law while deciding issue no.2 and committed error of law by drawing wrong inference from the facts of the case about the genuineness of the patta issued by the Gram Panchayat in favour of the plaintiff-appellant and finding is based on assumption ignoring the legal position that when there is a Patta issued by competent authority a presumption can be drawn that it has been issued by following due process by the authority.” CSA – 411/07-Balu Ram vs. Nagarpalika Mandal, Rajsamand, (2)CMA No.71/07-Balu Ram vs. Nagarpalika Mandal, Rajsamand, (3)CMA-72/07-(Balu Ram vs. Nagarpalika Mandal, Rajsamand), (4)CMA-73/07- (Kamlesh vs. Nagarpalika Mandal, Rajsamand), (5)CMA-74/07-(Shri Ram Lal vs. Nagarpalika Mandal, Rajsamand), (6)CSA-382/07-(Nand Lal & Anr.vs. Nagarpalika Mandal, Rajsamand), (7)CSA-412/07-(Shri Ram Lal vs. Nagarpalika Mandal, Rajsamand), (8)CSA-413/07(Kamlesh vs. Nagarpalika Mandal, Rajsamand), (9)CSA-414/07-(Balu Ram vs. Nagarpalika Mandal, Rajsamand) Judgment dt:16/9/08 5/6 6. Having perused the orders and evidence on record, this Court is satisfied that courts below have not misread any evidence nor the findings of facts returned by the courts below can be said to be perverse. The Courts below have concurrently found that Pattas issued in favour of plaintiffs were forged and “फर" Mere receipt of payment for some amount paid to the Gram Panchayat is not sufficient to confer any right of ownership or possession over the land in question on the plaintiffs. 7. After inclusion of area of Gram Panchayat Dhoinda in the municipal limits of Rajsamand the entire record of Gram Panchayat was possessed by the Municipal Board, Rajsamand and Commissioner's report was also produced before the courts below who had not found any construction of plaintiffs over the land in question. D.W.2-Champa Lal, the then Sarpanch had also denied issuing such patta. The Pattas in question were merely photo copies of the alleged original Pattas issued in favour of plaintiffs, which was not believed by the courts below, therefore, this Court finds that CSA – 411/07-Balu Ram vs. Nagarpalika Mandal, Rajsamand, (2)CMA No.71/07-Balu Ram vs. Nagarpalika Mandal, Rajsamand, (3)CMA-72/07-(Balu Ram vs. Nagarpalika Mandal, Rajsamand), (4)CMA-73/07- (Kamlesh vs. Nagarpalika Mandal, Rajsamand), (5)CMA-74/07-(Shri Ram Lal vs. Nagarpalika Mandal, Rajsamand), (6)CSA-382/07-(Nand Lal & Anr.vs. Nagarpalika Mandal, Rajsamand), (7)CSA-412/07-(Shri Ram Lal vs. Nagarpalika Mandal, Rajsamand), (8)CSA-413/07(Kamlesh vs. Nagarpalika Mandal, Rajsamand), (9)CSA-414/07-(Balu Ram vs. Nagarpalika Mandal, Rajsamand) Judgment dt:16/9/08 6/6 question framed above is required to be answered in negative and it is, therefore, held that the courts below have not committed any error while deciding issue no.2 and drawing inference from the facts of the case that Pattas issued by Gram Panchayat in favour of plaintiff- appellants were forged and “फर" and thus, courts below have not erred in refusing injunction to the appellants-plaintiffs. The second appeals are found to be devoid of merit and same are accordingly dismissed. 8. For the same reasons, the misc. applications filed by plaintiff- appellants under Order 41 Rule 27 are also required to be dismissed and same are hereby dismissed. No costs. (DR.VINEET KOTHARI), J. item no.32 to 40 baweja/-