1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR.

JUDGMENT.

Bangor Charitable Trust, v. The State of Rajasthan

Didwana

& ors.

S.B. Civil Second Appeal 116/2004 under

Section 100 C.P.C. against the judgment and

decree dated 2.5.2003 passed by the Additional

District Judge, Didwana in Civil Appeal( Decree)

No.17/2002.

Date of Judgment:

November 22, 2007.

PRESENT

HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA,J.

Mr. K.C.Samdaria for the appellant.

Mr. M.R. Singhvi for the respondents.

BY THE COURT:

This second appeal is against the dismissal of the suit of

the plaintiff by the trial court by judgment and decree dated

27.2.2002 and dismissal of the first appeal by the judgment

and decree dated 2.5.2003.

Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff Bangor

2

Charitable Trust, Didwana through its representative, filed

suit for declaration and injunction that the land of Khasra

No.2163 measuring 87 bighas and khasara No.2165 measuring

106 bighas 18 biswas be declared pasture-land. The plaintiff

further sought relief of injunction against the respondents

that the land in question may not be put to any other use and

may not be allotted to any body.

The defendants submitted written statement and stated

that the land in question has already been allotted to the

defendant-Rajasthan Industrial Investment Corporation

Limited (for short the 'RIICO') by the order of the State

Government on payment of market value of the land which

the RIICO deposited with the State on 31.3.1997 vide Receipt

No.51. The possession of the land has already been delivered

to the defendant-respondent RIICO by the revenue

authorities. It is also submitted that the land was never

recorded in the name of the plaintiff nor it was allotted as

pasture-land.

The issues were framed and after trial, the trial court

3

held that the plaintiff set-up the case that the suit property

was allotted to Seth Mangni Ram Bangor on 15.6.1944 but in

evidence the plaintiff's witness PW-1 stated that the land was

given to the Trust. Thereby, the plaintiff's own witness

contradicted the fact pleaded by the plaintiff that the land

was allotted to Seth Mangni Ram Bangor. The trial court also

considered the documents Ex.4, Ex.5 and Ex.7 which were

produced by the plaintiff to prove their right and interest in

the property of the Trust and thereafter held that by these

documents only it is provided that the land in question will be

used for grazing and in none of the document it is mentioned

that the land is allotted to either Seth Mangni Ram Bangor or

to the plaintiff-Trust. The trial court also held that from

combine reading of Ex.5 and Ex.7, it appears that Seth Mangni

Ram Bangor requested for reserving some land for pasture

purpose and there is clear mention that the land shall be

managed by the Panchayats. It appears that reference of

more than one Panchayat in managing the land is because of

the reason that the total land involved is 20,000 bighas. The

4

trial court also held that from the evidence produced by the

plaintiff, it is not proved that the land in question was in

plaintiff's possession or it was used for pasture purpose.

Therefore, in substance, the trial court dismissed the

plaintiff's locus standi in maintaining the suit. The trial court

further held that the District Collector had power to set apart

the land and allot for non-agricultural purpose. The plaintiff

did not choose to challenge the order of the land allotment

which was passed in favour of RIICO nor sought relief for

possession, therefore, on this ground also, the plaintiff is not

entitled for any relief. The plaintiff's suit was dismissed by the

trial court vide judgment and decree dated 27.2.2002 and the

appellate court confirmed the finding of fact recorded by the

trial court vide judgment and decree dated 2.5.2002.

According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the

appella