The validity of patta and possession rights in a property dispute.

JUDGMENT

1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner-defendant assailing the legality and validity of the order dated 26.04.2022 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sawaimadhopur dismissing the Civil Misc. Appeal No.19/2020 preferred against the order dated 18.07.2020 passed by the learned Civil Judge Khandar, District Sawimadhopur in Civil Misc. Case No.11/2020 (CIS No.11/2020) whereby, the temporary injunction application filed by the respondents-plaintiffs was allowed.

2. The relevant facts in brief are that the plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the petitioner stating therein that he was trying to encroach upon 20 ft. wide public way situated towards the southern side of their property. It was stated that this way was mentioned in the patta issued to them by the competent authority. The temporary injunction application filed by the plaintiffs alongwith the suit came to be allowed by the learned trial Court vide its order dated 18.07.2020 whereby, the petitioner was restrained from encroaching and raising construction on the 20 ft. wide public way marked A,B,C,D in the site plan annexed with the application, which was unsuccessfully challenged by the petitioner by way of a civil misc. appeal which came to be dismissed by the learned appellate Court vide its order dated 26.04.2022, the subject matter of challenge.

3. Assailing the order, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned Courts below erred in failing to appreciate that, as a matter of fact, plaintiffs were issued patta of the land including the 20 ft. wide public way and they had encroached upon the same. He submitted that he is in possession of the land purchased by him vide registered sale deed dated 27.07.2000. In this regard, he relied upon the Commissioner report dated 26.08.2021. He, therefore, prayed that the writ petition be allowed, the order dated 26.04.2022 be quashed and set aside and the application filed by the respondents under order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC be dismissed.

4. Heard. Considered.

5. There are concurrent findings of the facts against the petitioner. It has been held by the learned Courts that in the registered sale deed dated 27.07.2000 executed in favour of the petitioner, a public way has been shown towards the northern side of the property and, this Court, after going through the sale deed and the site plan appended thereto, does not find any perversity in the finding. Indisputably, plot(s) of the plaintiffs is situated towards the northern side of the plot of the petitioner and in the patta, a public way has been shown towards southern side and their plot(s) constitutes northern side of the petitioner's plot. The respondents were issued patta in the year 2007 & 2014 which have not been challenged by the petitioner till date. In these circumstances, contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the plaintiffs were allotted patta including the land of public way, cannot be countenanced at this stage.

6. This Court does not find the order dated 26.04.2022 passed by the learned appellate Court in exercise of its judicious discretion assigning cogent reasons to be suffering from any perversity or patent jurisdictional error so as to warrant interference of this Court under its limited supervisory jurisdiction vide Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

7. Resultantly, this writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit.