[2025:RJ-JD:36035]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19429/2023

1. Dr. Pradeep Nehra S/o Ramjas, Aged About 66 Years, By Caste Jat, Resident Of Sherpura, Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh, At Present Resident Of A-3, Green View Apartment, Sector -9, Rohini, Delhi.

2. Veer Vikram Nehra S/o Dr. Pradeep Nehra, Aged About 40 Years, By Caste Jat, Resident Of Sherpura, Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh, At Present Resident Of A-3, Green View Apartment, Sector -9, Rohini, Delhi.

----Petitioners Versus

1. Mahendra Pratap Singh S/o Dhannaram, By Caste Jat, Resident Of Farm Dhannaram Chhanibadi, Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh (Raj.)

2. Satpal S/o Santlal, Sherpura, Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh.

3. Jaideep S/o Lalchand, Farm Dhannaram Chhanibadi, Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh (Raj.)

4. The Municipal Council Bhadra, Through Executive Officer, Municipal Council Bhadra District Hanumangarh.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ankit Somani for Mr. Sajjan Singh.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dixit Panwar.

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI

Order

12/08/2025

1. By way of instant writ petition, the petitioners have invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking following relief(s):

“(i) It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the writ petition filed by the petitioners may kindly be allowed with cost and by an appropriate order, writ or direction, impugned order dated 24.11.2023 (Annexure 06), may kindly be quashed and set aside, consequence thereof, the application may kindly be allowed as prayed for.

(2) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction, which is considered just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners.”

2. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff-respondent No.1, Mahendra Pratap, filed a civil suit seeking declaration, dispossession, and permanent injunction against the defendants concerning a plot of land allegedly allotted by the Gram Panchayat Biharipura on 28.03.1960. The land in question is part of an aabadi area near the Panchayat Bhawan. It is claimed that Biharipura Panchayat was later merged into the Municipal Board, Bhadra in 1972. The plaintiff is the youngest son of one Choudhary Dhannaram, a resident of the area, who allegedly partitioned his properties among his sons through a family memorandum of partition dated 21.05.1971. After his death in 1972, the disputed plot (measuring 60 ft. x 90 ft.) allegedly came into the plaintiff's share.

2.1. The plaintiff alleges that the defendants unlawfully encroached upon this plot by placing construction materials and initiating foundation work. The plaintiff claims that defendant no. 4 sold the plot to defendant no. 1, who was granted a lease deed by the Municipal Board on 05.01.2012. A similar lease was allegedly granted to defendant no. 3 (Satpal). The plaintiff asserts that these lease deeds are invalid and forged, and seeks their cancellation, along with demolition of construction and recovery of possession.

2.2. The defendants (no.1 and 2) filed a written statement denying the plaintiff’s claims, calling the 1960 Patta forged, and challenging the partition memorandum as unregistered, unstamped, and inadmissible in evidence. They maintain that the lease deeds are lawfully executed and registered, and that the construction was raised legally without any objections.

2.3. During trial, after issues were framed and evidence commenced, the defendants objected to the admissibility of the 1971 partition memorandum by filing application dated 16.08.2023 (Annex.4), citing lack of registration and proper stamp duty. The trial court, vide order dated 24.11.2023, dismissed the said application/objection without proper findings on the document’s legal nature or admissibility. Hence this petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the document in question dated 21.05.1971 apparently shows that it is not