Advocates:
['HARISH KUMAR PUROHIT', '', 'MAHENDRA THANVI', 'ASHOK THANVI', 'NARENDRA THANVI', 'ARCHANA PUROHIT', 'NAVDEEP DADHICH', 'DALIP RAJVI', '', 'S R BHATI', 'NIRANJAN LAL JOSHI', 'MAHENDER SINGH SONI', 'SHREE KANT VERMA', 'VIKAS JOSHI', 'LOON KARAN PUROHIT', 'RAM DAYAL', 'VIKAS JOSHIPRATISHTHA DAVE', 'GANGA RAM', 'KIRTI PAREEKTAKHAT SINGHMAHENDER SINGH SONI']

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2467/2018

Madan Lal S/o Sh. Jaichand Lal, Aged About 65 Years, Grandson

Of Sh. Bhuramal Vaidh, R/o Ward No. 6, Taranagar, District

Churu (Raj.) Through The Special Power Of Attorney Holder Sh.

Prem Kumar S/o Amchandra Ji, Aged About 55 Years, B/c Saini,

R/o Ward No. 1, Dhani Sikhan, Nohar, Tehsil Nohar

----Appellant

Versus

1.

State Of Rajasthan, Through District Collector, Churu

2.

Tehsildar Revenue, Taranagar, District Churu

3.

Sainik Basti (Residential Colony), Municipality, Taranagar,

District Churu

4.

Municipality Taranagar, Through Its Executive Officer,

Municipality, Taranagar.

5.

Chairman, Municipality, Taranagar, District Churu

6.

Government Sanskrit Primary School, Through

Headmaster, Government Sanskriti Primary School,

Taranagar.

7.

Sub-Registrar Officer, Taranagar, District Churu

8.

Narottam S/o Late Jaichand Lal Vaidh, Aged About 63

Years, R/o Ward No. 6, Taranagar.

9.

Smt. Santosh D/o Late Jaichand Lal Vaidh, Aged About 60

Years, R/o Taranagar

10.

Shayara Devi D/o Late Jaichand Lal Vaidh, Aged About 58

Years, R/o Taranagar

11.

Kaanu Devi W/o Late Sh. Sohanlal, Aged About 33 Years,

S/o Late Jaichand Lal Vaidh, R/o Taranagar

12.

Paras S/o Late Sh. Sohanlal, Aged About 58 Years,

Grandson Of Late Jaichand Lal Vaidh, R/o Taranagar

13.

Chitra Gorachhi D/o Late Sh. Sohanlal, Aged About 58

Years, Granddaughter Of Late Jaichand Lal Vaidh, R/o

Taranagar

14.

Shanti Devi D/o Rukmanad Vaidh, R/o Ward No. 6

Taranagar District Churu.

15.

Amarchand S/o Fatehchand, Grandson Of Rukmanand

Vaidh, R/o Ward No. 6, Taranagar

(2 of 10)

[CMA-2467/2018]

16.

Hemant S/o Madanlal, R/o Pilibanga, Tehsil Pilibanga,

District Hanumangarh

17.

Himanshu D/o Madanlal, R/o Pilibanga, Tehsil Pilibanga,

District Hanumangarh.

----Respondents

For Appellant(s)

:

Mr. Narendra Thanvi

Mr. Mahendra Thanvi

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. Dalip Rajvi ] for respondent

Mr. Vikas Joshi ] No. 4 & 6

Mr. G.R.Bhari, for respondent no. 8 to

13, 16 & 17.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

Order

06/12/2022

This appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(a) CPC has been filed

against the order dated 18/8/2018 passed by the Addl. District

Judge No.1, Rajgarh Camp Churu, District Churu, whereby, the

trial court has ordered for return of the plaint under Order VII Rule

10 CPC for being presented before the competent court.

The appellant-plaintiff filed a suit for declaratory injunction,

permanent injunction and consequential relief of possession inter

alia claiming that the suit property belonging to the plaintiff and

formal defendants no. 8 to 17 is situated at Tara Nagar; chain of

title since the issue of Patta in the year 1879 was indicated. It was

contended that the State after coming into force of the Rajasthan

Tenancy Act, 1955 recorded the land as un-cultivable 'Banjar' and

'Gochar', which was unathorized. On the said land, part of Delhi-

Bikaner road was constructed and part of it was allotted to

Government Sanskrit School and for construction of houses for

nomads and Goswami Moksh. The boundaries of the remaining

(3 of 10)

[CMA-2467/2018]

land were indicated. It was then alleged that the State by its order

dated 7/6/2002 allotted 3 Bigha 4 Biswa land to the defendant

no.6, which was mutated in its name on 18/6/2002. Similarly, on

30/12/2005 68 Bigha land was allotted to defendant no. 3, which

was mutated on 13/2/2006. It was claimed that the said

allotments to Sanskrit School etc. are null and void qua the

plaintiff and the formal defendants for which the plaintiff and the

said defendants have right to seek declaration, which is the cause

of action. Said averments were followed by grounds questioning

the validity of the transfers and the steps taken by the plaintiff

from time to time including filing of the suit before the Civil Judge,

Tara Nagar.

With regard t