Back
2018 Supreme(Raj) 66
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Dinesh Mehta, J.
Mahendra Sharma & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Daya Ram Chela of Late Deva Ram & Ors. - Respondents
S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 49 of 1985
Decided On : 03-01-2018
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Ramit Mehta, Mr. Tarun Dudia
For the Respondent: Mr. R.K. Thanvi, Mr. Narendra Thanvi, Mr. Ashok Thanvi, Mr. O.P. Boob, Mr. Bhagirath Choudhary
A person who encroaches upon another person's land without any authority of law is not entitled to regularisation of their possession.
Headnote:
LAND DISPUTE - POSSESSION - OWNERSHIP - REVENUE RECORDS - SETTLEMENT - ENCROACHMENT - REGULARISATION - MESNE PROFITS - RAJASTHAN
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, Deva Ram, filed a suit against the defendants, including Teja Ram, alleging that they had illegally encroached upon 3900 sq. ft. of his land in Balotra, Rajasthan. The defendants claimed that they had been settled on the land by the District Collector during a flood and that the land belonged to the Government. The Trial Court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, holding that the land belonged to him and not to the Government.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court found that the land in question was part of khasra No. 235, which was owned by the plaintiff. The Court also found that the defendants had encroached upon the land without any authority of law. The Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court.
Issues: 1. Whether the land in question belonged to the plaintiff or to the Government? 2. Whether the defendants had encroached upon the plaintiff's land? 3. Whether the defendants were entitled to regularisation of their possession?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the land in question belonged to the plaintiff, as evidenced by the documentary and oral evidence produced by him. The Court also found that the defendants had encroached upon the land without any authority of law. 2. The Court held that the defendants were not entitled to regularisation of their possession, as the land did not belong to the Government.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. The defendants were ordered to hand over possession of the land to the plaintiff within a specified time period and to pay mesne profits from the date of the decree until the date of handing over possession.
Dinesh Mehta, J.
The present appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 had been filed by the appellants-defendants No. 8, 10, 11, 12 and 15 feeling aggrieved of the judgment and decree dated 20.04.1985, whereby the learned District Judge, Balotra (hereinafter referred to as the 'Trial Court') decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff - Deva Ram Chela Raja Ram.
2. The suit aforesaid came to be filed by the Respondent-plaintiff; inter alia, averring that he had purchased 10 bigha land of khasra No. 235 (old) of village Balotra, vide registered sale deed dated 27.07.1968 and was enjoying peaceful possession thereof; a road connecting Balotra and Samdari divided the said land of khasra No. 235 into two parts, on southern part, the plaintiff had constructed Rajaram Boarding House. It was also stated, that in the new settlement of Samvat 2032, the southern part of the land was shown to have been falling in khasra No. 558, while the northern part of the land, which is situated between the said Samdari-Balotra road and Samdari-Balotra railway line, became part of khasra No. 609. It has also been stated that the plaintiff had been enjoying peaceful possession over his land spread in khasra No. 558 and 609 until 17.07.1979, when as a result of the flood in Luni river, the entire area was submerged in 8 to 9 feet water and various persons, including defendants No. 1 to 7 and 9 to 16, took shelter on the plaintiff's open land in northern side of the road falling in khasra No. 609, as the same was at a higher gradient. According to the plaintiff, he had asked the defendants to leave the site when the water receded; but they refused to hand over the possession and rather constructed huts and baras etc.
3. Alleging that the defendants have illegally encroached upon 3900 sq. ft. land belonging to him, the plaintiff filed the suit in question for securing possession of the disputed land, while seeking to recover mesne profits from 17.07.1979 till the possession is recovered.
4. In response to the suit so fled, the defendants No. 2, 3, 4, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 15 filed a joint written statement, inter alia, refuting the contents of the plaint, including plaintiff's title over the contentious land.
5. While denying the title of the plaintiff, the defendants stated in their written statement that the District Collector, Barmer had provided them the shelter on the subject land, during the flood, for which, they are having licence(s) over the said land. The defendants also stated that the plaintiff's land is situated in southern side of the road and not on the northern side, on which part, they were having possession.
6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Trial Court framed the following seven issues thus:-
1- D;k Hkwfe [kljk ua0 235 okds ljgn ckyksrjk dh 10 ch?kk Hkwfe ftldk o.kZu vthZnkok esa fd;k x;k gS ;g Hkwfe oknh dh [kjhn lqnk] feYdh;rh o dCtk lqn gSa\
2- D;k okn i= ds lkFk layXu ifjf'k"V ^c* esa ntZ oknh dh Hkwfe ij izfroknhx.k us vfrdze.k djds edku cukdj uktk;t dCts fd;s gS vkSj oknh izfroknhx.k ls fooknxzLr Hkwfe dk dCtk ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS\
3- D;k oknh izfroknhx.k ls :i;s 3280-00 vkUrfjd ykHk dh jkf'k ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS] ;fn gS rks fdl dnj\
4- D;k fooknxzLr dk'r dh Hkwfe gksus ds dkj.k ;g nkok bl U;k;ky; ds {ks=kf/kdkj ds ckgj dk gS\
5- ;fn fooknxzLr Hkwfe dks vkcknh Hkwfe ekudj nkok bl U;k;ky; ds {ks=kf/kdkj dk ekuk tkosa rks D;k nkok ij dksVZ Qhl de yxk;h gS\
6- D;k oknh dk nkok vlR; ,oa fujk/kkj gS vkSj bl dkj.k izfroknhx.k fo'ks"k gtkZuk ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ ;fn gS rks fdruk\
7- vuqrks"k D;k gksxk\
7. In support of the plaintiff's case, PW-1 Madroop Ram, PW-2 Gumna Ram, PW-3 Uka Ram (the predecessor-in-title), PW-4 Lekh Raj, PW-5 Ummeda Ram, PW-6 Amara Ram Choudhary and PW-7 Jugal Kishore, Advocate (Commissioner) appeared in the witness box and produced General Power of Attorney (Ex. 1), Sale Deed (Ex.2), Mutation Entry (Ex.3), Jamabandi of Samvat 2022 to 2025 (Ex.4), Jamabandi of Samvat 2
