1 D.B.Civil Special Appeal(Writ) No.1243/2008 Devi Singh V/s State of Rajasthan & ors. 29.8.2008 Hon'ble the Chief Justice Mr.Narayan Roy Hon'ble Mr.Justice Mohammad Rafiq Mr.M.M.Ranjan for the appellant. Mr.H.V.Nandwana for the respondents. This appeal has been filed by the appellant, who is plaintiff in the trial court. The trial court by its order dated 30th May, 2008 dismissed the injunction application filed by the appellant alongwith his suit for perpetual injunction. The aforesaid order was affirmed by first appellate court by dismissing the appeal vide order dated 1st July, 2008 and then by the learned Single Judge of this Court in writ application vide order dated 11th July, 2008. Learned counsel for the appellant has asserted that khasra girdawari of the relevant period proves that the appellant was in possession of the disputed property till the year 1999 and that the respondents defendants could not have dispossessed him without due process of law. Learned counsel argued that the respondents-defendants have only taken possession of part of the disputed land and the appellant is still in possession of some part of the disputed land and therefore, to that extent, his possession should be protected. Learned counsel further argued that if the appellant is dispossessed, he would suffer irreparable loss and therefore, atleast order of status quo should be passed. Learned counsel for respondents-defendants disputed the facts and submitted that the possession 2 of the entire disputed land has already been taken over by the respondents-defendants and the land in question was actually acquired by JDA and was allotted for construction of building of ITI. The appellant has no right or title over the disputed land to even insist for the order of status quo. A perusal of the orders impugned reveals that all the three courts below concurrently found that the appellant-plaintiff could not prove his right or title over the land in dispute. The appellant plaintiff produced khasra girdawari of samvat 2053 to prove his possession, which corresponds to the year 1996. There is thus no proof of the continuous possession. Even the case of adverse possession was not found acceptable because the suit was filed only for injunction and not for declaration of title on the ground of adverse possession. The first appellate court has also recorded the fact that the possession of entire suit land has been taken by the defendants- respondents. The learned Single Judge of this Court has affirmed the aforesaid two orders of court below. On consideration of the arguments and perusal of the three orders impugned, we do not find that any of them suffers from any illegality or infirmity or perversity so as to warrant our interference. We therefore do not find any merit in this appeal. This appeal accordingly is dismissed. However, trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the suit. (Mohammad Rafiq)J. (Narayan Roy)C.J. Parmar