Nagar Palika, Raisinghnagar vs Rameshwar Lal

2) Facts of the case are simple so also the point involved in the appeal. They, however, need mention in brief infra.

5) The respondent (plaintiff) claiming to be the holder and in possession of the suit land on the strength of Patta issued in favour of his grand father

6) In substance, the case of the respondent, as set out in the plaint, was that the appellant - Nagar Palika had originally allotted the suit land to the respondent’s grandfather - Pokhar Ram as back as in 1957 against the payment of consideration which had duly paid by Pokhar Ram to the appellant vide receipt No.51 dated 18.03.1957.

7) It was alleged that Pokhar Ram then constructed his hut on the suit land and continued to live therein during his lifetime. On his death, the respondent's father continued to live therein during his lifetime and then on his death, the respondent inherited the suit land/hut and continued to remain in its occupation till the date of filing of the suit.

8) According to the respondent, the need to file the suit arose because he had some apprehension that the appellant-Nagar Palika which had taken 3 out a drive to oust some encroachers from the land belonging to Nagar Palika in the Municipal area may dispossess the respondent also from the suit land treating him as an encroacher on the suit land. It was for this reason, the respondent filed the civil suit to seek permanent injunction against the appellant in relation to the suit land on the strength of Patta already granted in favour of his predecessor-in-title by the appellant.

9) The appellant filed its written statement. While denying the respondent's claim, the appellant inter alia alleged that the respondent's grandfather was given some other land, that the grant so made in relation to the said land was cancelled and the money received was also refunded to him, that the suit land is a Nagar Palika land and the respondent with the help of some employees of the Nagar Palika got the suit land un-authorizedly allotted to him, and lastly, the suit land is needed for public purpose.

10) Issues were framed. Parties adduced evidence. The Trial Court, vide judgment dated 06.09.1988, dismissed the suit. The respondent (plaintiff), felt aggrieved, filed first appeal before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court, vide judgment/decree dated 17.04.1989, allowed the appeal and while setting aside of the judgment/decree of the Trial Court decreed the respondent's suit and accordingly granted permanent injunction, as prayed by the respondent, against the appellant in relation to the suit land.

22) This Court cannot appreciate the evidence again de novo while hearing this appeal. Though it is not permissible, yet we probe the evidence with a view to find out any error in the impugned judgment calling our interference. We, however, find it none.

23) In the light of foregoing discussion, we find no merit in the appeal, which fails and is accordingly dismissed.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre pronounced the judgment of the Bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.K. Agrawal and His Lordship.

The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed reportable judgment.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

(Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file 10