Possession of land can establish ownership rights, and failure to assert rightful ownership within the statutory period extinguishes those rights.

JUDGMENT

Appellants-Defendants have preferred this first appeal under Section 96 C.P.C. to challenge the impugned judgment and decree dated 19.11.2020 passed by Additional District Judge No.1, Aburoad, District Sirohi (for short, 'learned trial Court') in Civil Original Suit No.46/2009 (49/2009) (CIS No.876/2014) titled as "Smt. Aman Yadav v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.". Learned trial Court, by the impugned judgment and decree, decreed the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff for declaration, permanent and mandatory injunction.

Succinctly stated, the facts of the case are that initially a suit for declaration, permanent and mandatory injunction was filed by respondent-plaintiff Smt. Aman Yadav against the State of Rajasthan and Municipal Board, Aburoad on the ground that one property of plaintiff's ownership situated in Ward No.1 of Mouja Manpur, Aburoad and four corners of the property are mentioned at para no.1 of the plaint and khasra numbers of the property are mentioned in para no.2 of the plaint. The land was allotted in favour of plaintiff vide allotment letter dated 25.04.1959 for the purpose of installing and developing poultry and dairy farm and since then, the plaintiff is in possession over the land in question.

After allotment of the land in question in favour of the plaintiff, in the year 1961, the Gram Panchayat, Aakarabhatta proceeded to issue pattas in favour of the different persons over the same land then, the plaintiff had filed her objections on 29/31.10.1961 and reiterated the fact of her ownership over the land in question. Despite of that, pattas were issued by the concerned Gram Panchayat and the land in question was sold to one Himmat Singh. Thereafter, Himmat Singh had filed a civil suit claiming possession and mesne profits in relation to the land in question. The issues framed in that suit regarding possession and ownership were decided in favour of the present respondent- plaintiff. In the year 1962, the plaintiff had dug one well on the land in question, thereupon, the Gram Panchayat had issued a notice to the plaintiff on 26.05.1962 for being using the land in question for the purposes other than the conditions of allotment. In the year 1972, the Tehsildar, Abu Road had issued a letter to the plaintiff stating that the proposal for resuming the land in question in favour of the State Government but nothing happened thereafter. In the year 1977, a representative of the District Collector had informed the plaintiff that the land in question is being used in violation of the conditions of allotment. Thereafter, the Tehsildar, Abu Road issued three notices under Section 91 of the Land Revenue Act and threatened the plaintiff for dispossessing her from the land in question. Despite all these proceedings, the plaintiff remained in possession over the land in question as its owner. Thereafter, in the years 1981 and 1984 Gram Panchayat, Aakarabhatta further issued the notices for dispossession of the plaintiff from the land in question but she disowned the order and claimed to be owner of land in question. In 1996, Gram Panchayat, Aakarabhatta again sent notice to vacate the possession and further Gram Panchayat, Aakarabhatta issued Pattas to some other persons. Proceedings of which has been challenged by Panchayat Prasar Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Aburoad before District Collector, Sirohi in the revision petition in which plaintiff was also made party without any reason and District Collector, Sirohi cancelled those Pattas vide order dated 03.11.1998 and the same has been challenged before the High Court and further challenged before Hon'ble Apex Court, in which, Hon'ble Apex Court on 14.08.2006 directed that possession to be taken back from the illegal allottees and thereafter allotment to be made through public auction. The plaint which was placed before Hon'ble Apex Court, one of the important fact was concealed by respondent No.1 that from 1959 plaintiff was having peaceful possession over the land i