SBCSA NO.8/2008 –Dr.KESHRI SINGH V/S UIT, JODHPUR AND ORS.. : JUDGMENT DTD.9.5.2008 1/7 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. S.B. CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO.8/2008 Dr. Keshri Singh . versus The UIT, Jodhpur and ors. PRESENT HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr.Manish Shishodia, for the appellant. Mr.Yashwant Mehta, for respondents DATE OF JUDGMENT : 9th May, 2008. JUDGMENT 1. This second appeal is directed against the concurrent findings of two Courts below in suit for injunction filed by the plaintiff – appellant as the respondent – defendant Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur gave a notice under Section 203 of the Act for eviction of the plaintiff treating him as trespasser. SBCSA NO.8/2008 –Dr.KESHRI SINGH V/S UIT, JODHPUR AND ORS.. : JUDGMENT DTD.9.5.2008 2/7 2. The plaintiff came to the Court on the ground that he was tenant of a property known as Manji Ka Bangla and “Burj” (outhouse of the bungalow) and two separate tenancies were created by the erstwhile Ruler of Jodhpur in favour of father of the plaintiff late Sh. Madan Singh and they were in possession of the property since 1953. 3. The learned trial Court as well as the first appellate Court found against the plaintiff that the said “Burj” of the property known as “Manji Ka Bangla” which is subject matter of present appeal was also acquired by the State Government for Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur vide notification dtd.3.6.1974 and in fact, possession of the said property “Manji Ka Bangla” was handed over to the Urban Improvement Trust and thereafter since the plaintiff again encroached upon the said “Burj”, part of the property “Manji Ka Bangla”, he was given notice under Section 203 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act for removal of encroachment and there was no case made out for giving any injunction against the respondents – defendants and the suit for injunction was accordingly dismissed. The first Appellate Court also dismissed the appeal of the plaintiff. SBCSA NO.8/2008 –Dr.KESHRI SINGH V/S UIT, JODHPUR AND ORS.. : JUDGMENT DTD.9.5.2008 3/7 4. Mr. Manish Shishodia, learned counsel for the appellant in the present second appeal strenuously urged that no notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act dated 3.6.1974, a photocopy of which he produced in this Court during the course of arguments, was produced by the respondent – UIT or the Municipal Council before the trial Court and therefore, the learned Courts below could not have reached to the conclusion that even “Burj” was acquired by the State for the UIT, Jodhpur. He however, submitted that “Mansinghji Ka Bangla” might have been acquired, but the present appellant was tenant of “Burj” of the said property “Mansinghji Ka Bangla” and therefore, on the basis of separate tenancy under Ex.1 to 3, the rent receipts issued by erstwhile Controller of property of His Highness of Jodhpur, plaintiff could not be held to be a trespasser. He also relied upon the statements of witnesses before the Trial Court. 6. On the side opposite, Mr. Yashwant Mehta vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that no substantial question of law arises in the matter out of concurrent findings of two Courts below in a suit for injunction so as to require interference by this Court under Section SBCSA NO.8/2008 –Dr.KESHRI SINGH V/S UIT, JODHPUR AND ORS.. : JUDGMENT DTD.9.5.2008 4/7 100 C.P.C. He read out extensively the statements of P.W.1 Dr. Keshri Singh, P.W.2 Shakti Prasann Singh and P.W.3 Anand Singh etc.and pointed out that all these witnesses had admitted in their cross-examination that the property known as “Manji Ka Bangla” was acquired by the State Government for the scheme known as “Manji Ka Hattha Scheme”, which is on the main part of the city of Jodhpur and he submitted that after acquisition, all the plots in questions were allotted to different allottees including the portion on which the said “Burj” is situated to the defendants No.2 and 3 Ramswaroop and Pawan Goyal and various constructions had come up there including on nearby plot of M/s Suncity Hospital and in fact on account of illegal possession by way of trespass of the present appellant on the said “Burj”, the work of road widening by the UIT, Jodhpur was held up. He also submitted that since entire property “ Manji Ka Bangla” was acquired by the State Government including the aforesaid “Burj” which was part and parcel of the said property and same was categorically stated in the plaint itself as also in the impugned judgment of the Courts below, therefore, there was no question of appellant being allowed to come out with a new case at this stage to submit that the said “Burj” was a different property and SBCSA NO.8/2008 –Dr.KESHRI SINGH V/S UIT, JODHPUR AND ORS.. : JUDGMENT DTD.9.5.2008 5/7 was not acquired by the State Government and thus, the appellant was not trespasser thereon. He, therefore, prayed for dismissal of present second appeal under Section 100 C.P.C. 7. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record. 8. This Court is of the opinion that no substantial question of law arises in the present appeal so as to require any interference in the concurrent findings of two Courts below against the plaintiff -appellant in a suit for injunction. While this cannot be disputed that said “Burj” was part of the property known as “Manji Ka Bangla”, which was admittedly acquired by the State under the Notification dtd.3.6.1974, merely because the rent receipts were separately issued for “Manji Ka Bangla” and “Burj”, it cannot be said that the same were two separate properties. The witnesses produced by the plaintiff himself including the plaintiff P.W.1 Dr. Keshri Singh have admitted in their statement that the said property “Manji Ka Bangla” was acquired by the State Government. As a matter of fact, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents that in lieu of said SBCSA NO.8/2008 –Dr.KESHRI SINGH V/S UIT, JODHPUR AND ORS.. : JUDGMENT DTD.9.5.2008 6/7 acquisition of “Manji Ka Bangla”, an alternative plot in “Saraswati Nagar”, Jodhpur was allotted in the name of mother of the present appellant Smt. Samandar Kanwar which fact has not been disputed by the plaintiff or his counsel. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant was given opportunity while passing of the ex parte order while issuing notices in the present second appeal on 14.1.2008 and thereafter on 24.4.2008 and 5.5.2008to bring on record any material or point out any material already on record to establish for satisfaction of the Court that the said “Burj” was the property different and separate from the said property 'Manji Ka Bangla”. No such material was brought on record except photocopy of the notification dtd.3.6.1974 which clearly shows that inter alia the property measuring 75000 sq. yards belonging to M/s Jodhan Real Estate Company Pvt. Ltd. was acquired by the State Government. There is no dispute that the said property includes the property in question. Nothing separate for “Burj” in question is mentioned in the said Notification either. Thus, this Court is satisfied that the “Burj” in question which was part and parcel of the property known as “Manji Ka Bangla” was acquired by the State SBCSA NO.8/2008 –Dr.KESHRI SINGH V/S UIT, JODHPUR AND ORS.. : JUDGMENT DTD.9.5.2008 7/7 Government for the UIT, Jodhpur and the injunction suit filed by the plaintiff was rightly dismissed by two Courts below. 10. In the considered opinion of this Court, no substantial question of law arises in the matter so as to call for any interference under Section 100 C.P.C. by this Court and the present second appeal is devoid of any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. (Dr.VINEET KOTHARI)J. Item No. Ss/-