CSA 536/04 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Civil 2nd Appeal No.536/2004 Bakhtawar Singh & Ors Versus State of Rajasthan & (2) Ors. Date of Order ::: 22/01/08 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Dr. Prakash C.Jain, for appellants (plaintiff) Mr. Rajendra S.Rathore, Addl.Govt.Adv. for respondent-State Instant second appeal has been filed by plaintiff assailing judgment & decree dt. 31/07/04 whereby Addl. District Judge No.1, Alwar while allowing State's appeal (50/03) and rejecting cross objection (73/04) of plaintiff set aside judgment & decree dt.26/04/03 passed by Addl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) NO.2, Alwar and accordingly dismissed plaintiff's suit (93/89). Plaintiffs (appellant) filed suit for permanent injunction with the prayer for restraining defendants from dispossessing them from suit land bearing khasra No.102 of big junk of land out of which 40 bighas were claimed by them. It is relevant to mention at this stage that earlier revenue suit was filed before SDO Alwar and matter went up to the Board of Revenue and decided vide judgment dt.19/09/85 – review CSA 536/04 //2// whereof was sought by appellant, which was decided vide order dt.08/07/87 (Ex.4 & 5), whereby prayer made by appellant for regularisation of land in question was not accepted and also observed that if application for regularisation has been filed, it is for allotment committee to consider regularisation and proceedings U/s 91 of Rajasthan Land Revenue Act were pending against trespassers where regularisation can also be considered. This order of Board of Revenue attained finality and there is nothing on record about proceedings if any finally culminated with regard to proceedings U/s 91 of Land Revenue Act initiated against trespasser – reference whereof has been made by the Board of Revenue while deciding review petition vide order dt.08/07/87 (Ex.5). Learned trial Judge after taking note of material on record, decreed the suit in favour of appellant restraining respondents from dispossessing but it has been set aside by first appellate court on appeal being preferred by State and Forest Department vide judgment dt.31/07/04. This Court has gone through the finding arrived at by trial court. Issues framed for adjudication are almost co-related to what CSA 536/04 //3// has been considered by Board of Revenue. Counsel for appellant submits that the finding recorded by appellate court is not legally sustainable because it was an independent case being filed by appellant with regard to dispossession and even if they are trespasser, dispossession could not have taken place; as such in such circumstances, dismissal of suit by first appellate court vide judgment impugned does not hold good. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance, perused the impugned judgments passed by courts below. This court does not find any substance in any of submissions made (supra). Once the matter has finally culminated and decided by the Board of Revenue and there was no issue left which at all required to be considered with regard to the disputed land and the suit filed by plaintiff and finding recorded by appellate court is duly supported by due appreciation of facts and law based on material on record. No substantial questions of law arise in this second appeal, which may warrant interference. Consequently, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed alongwith stay petition. Records of courts below be returned back. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p.3/536CSA04.doc.