CSA 90/07 (1) In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan At Jaipur Bench, Jaipur J U D G M E N T In S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.90/2007 Charani Vs. Gram Panchayat, Bahaj, Tehsil Deeg & another Date Of Judgment :: 27th March, 2009 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jitendra Ray Goyal Mr. V.S. Chouhan, for appellant. ........ This is plaintiff's second appeal filed under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 14/7/2006 passed by Additional District Judge No.1, Deeg, Bharatpur in Civil Appeal No.8/96 whereby the judgment and decree dated 11/1/1996 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Deeg, Bharatpur in Civil Suit No.1/1995 (85/84) has been affirmed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the CSA 90/07 (2) plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction stating therein that there are two platforms (Chabutara) in front of his house and adjacent to that he is also having an open piece of land of his ownership since long and the said piece of land is used by him as a chowk for keeping the cattle and some house hold works and with his consent an electric pole is also installed in the said chowk; that the defendant-respondents are not concerned with the alleged chowk in any way and on account of political rivalry they want to dispossess him from the said chawk. 3. The defendant Gram Panchayat did not contest the suit nor any competent person of the Gram Panchayat put appearance and on the application made by the defendant No.2 Kushi Ram, he was made party to the suit and he filed the written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and stated that the disputed land was owned by Gram Panchayat and it was sold by the Gram Panchayat to the defendant no.2 on 28/6/1985 and the sale deed was executed in his CSA 90/07 (3) favour and possession was also handed over to him and he after getting the permission has constructed the boundary wall and using the said land. 4. The trial court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, framed the issues and after recording the evidence and hearing the parties dismissed the plaintiffs' suit for declaration and permanent injunction holding that the Gram Panchayat, Bahaj was having right to auction the disputed land. 5. The first appeal filed by the plaintiff was also dismissed observing that defendant failed to establish the disputed land to be of his ownership. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgments of both the learned courts below. 7. Both the learned courts below arrived at the concurrent finding of the fact that the plaintiff has no right or title over the disputed land and the said land was of Gram Panchayat, Bahaj who auctioned the said land in favour of the respondent Khushi Ram. There appears no substantial question of law involved CSA 90/07 (4) in this second appeal. I do not find any good ground to interfere with the concurrent judgment and decree. 8. Consequently, this second appeal, being devoid of any force, is hereby dismissed. (J.R. Goyal),J. V.S. Shekhawat/- Jr. P.A. D29