MANU/SC/0126/2024

Equivalent/Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 121, 2024(2)SC ALE632, [2024]2SC R650

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal Nos. 722 of 2012, 8977 of 2012, 468 of 2013, 524 of 2013, 467 of 2013
and Civil Appeal No. 2687 of 2024 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 25200 of 2013)
Decided On: 20.02.2024
The Tehsildar, Urban Improvement Trust and Ors. Vs. Ganga Bai Menariya (Dead)
through L.Rs. and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Vikram Nath and Rajesh Bindal, JJ.
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: S. Niranjan Reddy, Sr. Adv., C. Mohan Rao, Adv.,
Aruna Gupta, AOR, Ramesh Allanki and Syed Ahmad Naqvi, Advs.
For Respondents/Defendant: Rishabh Sancheti, Padma Priya, Anchit Bhandari, Karan
Bhootra, Garvit Sharma, Advs., K. Paari Vendhan, AOR, V.K. Shukla, Sr. Adv., Vivek
Gupta, Mrinmay Bhattmewara, Manish Mogra, Ankit Verma, Dashrath Singh, Advs.,
Karan Singh Bhati, AOR, S.K. Upadhyay, Sr. Adv., Hitesh Kumar Sharma, S.K. Rajora,
Sandeep Singh Dhingra, Amit Kumar Chawla, Niharika Dewivedi, Kaveri Upadhyay, Advs.
and T. Mahipal, AOR
Case Note:
Civil - Title - Allotment of land - Respondents filed suit for permanent
injunction against Appellants and also claimed ownership and possession of
suit land - It was claimed that suit land was purchased by Respondents-
Plaintiffs from Panchayat - Respondents-Plaintiffs had not been able to make
out pleaded case on basis of evidence led by them and same were decided
against them - Trial Court found that Respondents-Plaintiffs were found to be
in illegal possession of land and were not entitled to injunction prayed for - In
appeal before First Appellate Court by Respondents, findings recorded by Trial
Court were reversed and suit was decreed - High Court upheld judgment and
decree of First Appellate Court by holding that allotment of land in favour of
Respondents- Plaintiffs was proved - Hence, present appeal - Whether
allotment of land by Gram Panchayat in favour of Respondents-Plaintiffs was
proved.
Facts:
The Respondents filed the suit for permanent injunction against the
Appellants and also claimed ownership and possession of the suit land. It was
claimed that the suit land was purchased by the Respondents-Plaintiffs from
Panchayat. The stand taken by the Appellants in the written statement was
that the land in question was a Government land earmarked for grazing
cattles. The Respondents-Plaintiffs had not been able to make out the
pleaded case on the basis of evidence led by them and the same were decided
against them. Finally, the Trial Court found that the Respondents-Plaintiffs
were found to be in illegal possession of the land and were not entitled to the
02-01-2025 (Page 1 of 12) www.manupatra.com Pondicherry University Legal Consultant
injunction prayed for. It was specifically noticed that the suit had not been
filed for declaration as it was merely for injunction and the encroachers on
the land were not found entitled to the relief of injunction. In appeal before
the First Appellate Court by the Respondents, the findings recorded by the
Trial Court were reversed and the suit was decreed. The High Court upheld
the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court in an appeal filed by the
present Appellants. The High Court noticed that allotment of land in favour of
the Respondents-Plaintiffs was proved with the evidence of two witnesses,
who were members of the Gram Panchayat at the relevant time.
Held, while allowing the appeal:
(i) Nothing was referred to by the Respondents from the record to show the
reasons for producing copy of the document in Court and not summoning the
record from the Gram Panchayat to prove execution of the alleged lease in
their favour. The contents of the documents were required to be proved. Effort
was made to prove the document by producing two witnesses. It was signed
by the Sarpanch. There was no material on record to show that, except the
oral statements of two witnesses that at the relevant time, they were
members of the Gram Panchayat otherwise the document (lease deed) placed
on record by the Respondents-Plaintiffs as such did not contain their
signatures. The document only contains signatures of some Sarpanch who had
attested the same stating to be true copy. It was claimed that at the relevant
time, Sarpanch, however before the evidence could be led, he expired and
hence could not be produced in evidence. If the Respondents-Plaintiffs wished
to prove the contents of the document in question, they could very well
summon the record from the Gram Panchayat when a specific plea taken by
the Appellants was that the document was forged and the Gram Panchayat
did not have competence to lease out the land. [18]
(ii) In the light of the evidence led on record by the Appellants-Defendants, it
was incumbent on the Respondents to have proved their title on the land,
which they failed to establish. As per the stand of the Appellants, the
Respondents were encroachers upon the land for which notice under Section
92A of the 1959 Act was issued to them. The same was replied to by the
Respondents stating therein that they have patta executed in their favour by
the Gram Panchayat. [21]
(iii) The judgment of the High Court suffers from patent illegality.
Consequently, the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court as well as
the High Court were set aside and that of the Trial Court was restored. As a
consequence, the suit filed by the Respondents was dismissed. [21.2]
JUDGMENT
Rajesh Bindal, J.
1. Leave granted in S.L.P.(C) No. 25200 of 2013.
2. This order will dispose of a bunch of appeals as common issues are involved.
Civil Appeal No. 722 of 2012

02-01-2025 (Page 2 of 12) www.manupatra.com Pondicherry University Legal Consultant

3 . In the case in hand, a Civil Suit1 was filed by the Respondents for permanent
injunction and for ownership and possession of the suit land. The Trial Court2 dismissed
the suit, however, First Appellate Court3 accepted the appeal and decreed the suit
restraining the Defendants therein from interfering in the possession of the Plaintiffs in
the suit land. The appeal preferred before the High Court4 by the present Appellants was
dismissed. It is the aforesaid judgment5, which is impugned before this Court.
4 . The Respondents filed the suit on 10.05.1999 for permanent injunction against the
Appellants and also claimed ownership and possession of the suit land, situated at
Mauja Madri, Savina Road, measuring 35x38 i.e., 1,330 square yards on which a room
measuring 20x30 feet had been constructed. It was claimed that the suit land was
purchased by the Respondents-Plaintiffs from Panchayat Titardi on 13.12.1959 and a
boundary wall was constructed in the year 1960. The suit was filed as a notice was
issued by the Appellants Under Section 92A of the 1959 Act6.
5 . The stand taken by the Appellants in the written statement was that the land in
question is a Government land (Bilanam Sarkar) earmarked for grazing cattles (gochar
land), which was forming part of Khasra No. 1163 (old Khasra No. 838) in village
Mauza Madri Menaria, Tehsil Girva. The Gram Panchayat, Titardi was not competent to
grant lease in respect to the aforesaid land, especially when it was ear- marked for
grazing cattles. Notice was issued on receiving information that the Respondents-
Plaintiffs had encroached upon the land. It was also pleaded that Gram Panchayat,
Titardi was a necessary party but had not been impleaded. In the revenue record, the
land was still shown to be owned by the Government. In case the claim of Respondents-
Plaintiffs was that it was given on lease to them, there was no mutation entered on the
basis thereof.
6. The Trial Court framed six issues as extracted below:
1. Whether the land mentioned in para 1 of the suit is the land and house in the
ownership and possession of the Plaintiff? Plaintiff
2 . Whether the Defendants forcibly wanted to demolish the Plaintiff's house?
Plaintiff
3. Whether the Plaintiff has tried to unauthorisedly acquire the land which is in
the ownership of Nagar Vikas Pranyas? Defendant
4 . Whether in absence of pleading the Gram Panchayat Titardi as necessary
party, the suit of the Plaintiff is not maintainable? Defendant
5. Whether the Gram Panchayat Titardi was not authorized to issue the patta in
favour of the Plaintiff, the patta issued in favour of Plaintiff is forged?
Defendant
6 . Whether without declaration suit for injunction filed by the Plaintiff is not
maintainable? Defendant
7 . Issues No. 1 to 3 and 5, being inter-related, were decided together. The
Respondents-Plaintiffs had not been able to make out the pleaded case on the basis of
evidence led by them and the same were decided against them. Issue No. 4 was decided
against the Plaintiffs and in favour of the Defendants and so was the finding recorded
on issue No. 6. Finally, the Trial Court found that the Respondents-Plaintiffs were found
02-01-2025 (Page 3 of 12) www.manupatra.com Pondicherry University Legal Consultant
to be in illegal possession of the land and were not entitled to the injunction prayed for.
It was specifically noticed that the suit had not been filed for declaration as it was
merely for injunction and the encroachers on the land were not found entitled to the
relief of injunction.
8. In appeal before the First Appellate Court by the Respondents, the findings recorded
by the Trial Court were reversed and the suit was decreed. Even the issue regarding
non-impleadment of Gram Panchayat, Titardi as necessary party in the suit was
reversed. So was the position with regard to maintainability of the suit simpliciter for
injunction without praying for relief of declaration. This is despite the fact that the
Respondents-Plaintiffs had claimed their title or legality of possession on the land from
the Gram Panchayat, which was not impleaded.
9 . The High Court upheld the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court in an
appeal filed by the present Appellants. The High Court noticed that allotment of land in
favour of the Respondents- Plaintiffs in the year 1959 was proved with the evidence of
two witnesses, who were members of the Gram Panchayat at the relevant time. The
High Court also recorded that patta (lease) is in existence, which was granted by a
statutory body, Gram Panchayat, Titardi. The Respondents-Plaintiffs were entitled to
decree of permanent injunction. The suit simpliciter for injunction was held to be
maintainable without seeking declaration. The High Court found that no substantial
question of law was involved in the second appeal.
C.A. Nos. 8977/2012, 468/2013, 524/2013, 467/2013 and Civil Appeal @ S.L.P.(C) No.
25200/2013
10. In the aforesaid bunch of appeals and the Special Leave Petition, in which leave
was granted, the High Court had disposed of all the appeals, merely relying upon its
earlier judgment dated 14.07.2009 in S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 6/2008 titled as The
Tehsildar, Urban Improvement Trust and Anr. v. Late Smt. Ganga Bai Menariya through
legal representatives. The aforesaid appeal decided by the High Court is subject matter
of consideration before this Court in C.A. No. 722 of 2012, which is being dealt with in
the present judgment.
ARGUMENTS
Civil Appeal No. 722 of 2012
11. Learned Counsel for the Appellants submitted that the findings recorded by the First
Appellate Court, as upheld by the High Court, are erroneous. In fact, the judgment and
decree of the Trial Court was passed while properly appreciating the legal position and
the evidence produced on record. It is a case in which the Respondents-Plaintiffs
claimed that they had been granted patta (lease) of the land by Gram Panchayat, Titardi
in the year 1959 and on the basis thereof, they were continuing in possession.
However, the fact remains that the land was still being shown in the ownership of the
Government. It was ear-marked for grazing cattles (pasture land). The Gram Panchayat
did not have any authority to lease out the same. It cannot even change user of the
land. Simpliciter a suit for permanent injunction was filed without seeking a declaration
of the rights vested in the Respondents-Plaintiffs on the basis of documents produced
by them on record, which was not maintainable. Gram Panchayat, Titardi from which
the Respondents- Plaintiffs were claiming rights in the property, was not even
impleaded as party. The patta (lease) in favour of the Respondents-Plaintiffs was sought
to be proved merely by producing two witnesses, who were claimed to be the members
of the Panchayat at the relevant time but not signatory to the document. The record
02-01-2025 (Page 4 of 12) www.manupatra.com Pondicherry University Legal Consultant
from Gram Panchayat was not summoned. The High Court had failed to frame any
substantial question of law.
C.A. Nos. 8977/2012, 468/2013, 524/2013, 467/2013 and Civil Appeal @ S.L.P.(C) No.
25200/2013
1 2 . Additional argument raised in the bunch of other appeals was that the Gram
Panchayat had granted patta (lease) in favour of the Respondents therein in
contravention of Rule 266 of the 1961 Rules7 in terms of which the panchayat land
could be sold by way of private negotiation only in case it was not possible to fetch
reasonable price if the land was put to auction. Specific reasons were required to be
recorded. The Respondents-Plaintiffs being in illegal possession of the land, notices
were rightly issued for their eviction. It was after following the due process of law,
which could not be challenged merely by filing a suit for injunction.
1 3 . On the other hand, learned Counsel for the Respondents submitted that it was
claimed that the Respondents-Plaintiffs had title of the property by way of lease
executed by Gram Panchayat, Titardi on 13.12.1959. It is claimed by the Appellants that
chunk of land was transferred by District Collector vide order dated 15.4.1989 to the
Urban Improvement Trust for extension of abadi. It was said to be Government bilanam.
There was no reference of gochar land, as is sought to be claimed by the Appellants.
Notice was issued to the Respondents more than 19 years after the land was transferred
to Urban Improvement Trust. As the Respondents wanted to protect their right in the
land as also possession, the suit was filed merely for permanent injunction as they had
title of the property on the basis of patta executed by Gram Panchayat in their favour.
There was no need to file a suit for declaration. The patta (lease) executed by the Gram
Panchayat was exhibited. It was issued by the Sarpanch in the presence of two
witnesses. Both were examined as PW4 and PW5. The documents being more than 30
years old, there was presumption available Under Section 90 of the 1872 Act8. There is
no error in the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court, as upheld by
the High Court.
1 4 . It was further argued that on 17.10.2012, the State Government introduced a
Scheme, whereby land in possession of persons prior to the year 1965 was being
regularised. In terms of that, 23.43 hectares of land in village Paneriyo Ki Madari was
transferred by the Appellants to Municipal Council, Udaipur vide letter dated
29.01.2013. NOC was also issued by Municipal Council, Udaipur on 04.04.2013 for
issuance of patta under the State Grants Act, 1961 to the persons in possession of the
land prior to 01.01.1965. Thus, in view of this subsequent developments, the Appellants
have nothing to do with the land in question. Number of pattas had already been issued
in favour of occupants of the land. In fact, for part of the land in question, pattas have
already been issued on 21.10.2012. The aforesaid Scheme i.e. known as 'Parshashan
Shehron Ka Sang Abhiyan, 2012'. It continued from time to time in the State till the
year 2020-21.
15. It was further submitted that a clarification was issued by the State Government on
21.04.2022 regarding the Scheme of 2021 for issuance of free hold patta. As per the
aforesaid clarification, the patta may be issued in favour of last purchaser in the
absence of link document, who purchased land after 31.12.2018.
16. Heard leaned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record.
DISCUSSION

02-01-2025 (Page 5 of 12) www.manupatra.com Pondicherry University Legal Consultant

Civil Appeal No. 722 of 2012
1 7 . In the case in hand, the Respondents claimed that they were given the land
measuring 1330 square yards on lease by Gram Panchayat, Titardi on 13.12.1959. It is
claimed that they were in possession of the land ever since then. The fact remains that
no revenue record was produced by the Respondents-Plaintiffs to show that the land in
question was ever mutated in their favour. In the evidence led, they were found to be in
possession as even the case set up by the Appellants is that they issued notice to the
Respondents-Plaintiffs Under Section 92A of the 1959 Act. To prove the lease in their
favour, the Respondents-Plaintiffs had produced in evidence Ex. 1, claimed to be lease
deed dated 13.12.1959 executed by the Gram Panchayat in favour of late Ganga Bai
widow of Jai Shankar Menaria. In the stand taken by the Appellants, the land being
reserved for grazing cattles could not possibly be leased out by the Gram Panchayat.
17.1. On one side, the plea sought to be taken by the Respondents is that the
document being more than 30 years old, there was presumption of truth in terms of
Section 90 of the 1872 Act. This Section provides that if the document is more than 30
years old and is being produced from proper custody, a presumption is available to the
effect that signatures and every other part of such document, which purports to be in
the handwriting of any particular person, is in that person's handwriting and in case a
document is executed or attested, the same was executed and attested by the persons
by whom it purports to be executed and attested. This does not lead to a presumption
that recitals therein are correct. (Reference can be made to the judgment of this Court
in Union of India v. Brahim Uddin and Anr. MANU/SC/0561/2012 : 2012:INSC:288 :
(2012) 8 SCC 148.
18. Nothing was referred to by learned Counsel for the Respondents from the record to
show the reasons for producing copy of the document in Court and not summoning the
record from the Gram Panchayat to prove execution of the alleged lease in their favour.
The contents of the documents were required to be proved. Effort was made to prove
the document by producing two witnesses. (PW4 and PW5 stated that the lease was
granted in favour of the Respondents). It was signed by the Sarpanch. There was no
material on record to show that, except the oral statements of aforesaid two witnesses
that at the relevant time, namely, in the year 1959, they were members of the Gram
Panchayat otherwise the document Ex. 1 (lease deed) placed on record by the
Respondents-Plaintiffs as such does not contain their signatures. The document only
contains signatures of some Sarpanch who had attested the same stating to be true
copy. It was claimed that at the relevant time, Sarpanch was Kushal Singh, however
before the evidence could be led, he expired and hence could not be produced in
evidence. If the Respondents-Plaintiffs wished to prove the contents of the document in
question, they could very well summon the record from the Gram Panchayat when a
specific plea taken by the Appellants was that the document was forged and the Gram
Panchayat did not have competence to lease out the land.
1 9 . The Respondents-Plaintiffs while filing the civil suit did not implead the Gram
Panchayat as party. In such circumstances, the Respondents-Plaintiffs were required to
prove the document as the competence of the Gram Panchayat to lease out the land
itself was in question. The Gram Panchayat could have filed the written statement
admitting or denying execution of the lease deed and place complete facts before the
Court as per records.
20. In the revenue record produced on record by the Appellants, it is shown that the
land in question was shown in ownership of Government (Bilanam Sarkar). Its new

02-01-2025 (Page 6 of 12) www.manupatra.com Pondicherry University Legal Consultant

Khasra Number was 1163 and old Khasra Number is 838 in Mauza Madri Menaria, Tehsil
Girva. As per jamabandi Ex. A-1, the land forming part of Khasra No. 838 was shown to
be non-agricultural reserved for grazing cattles (shamlat deh).
21. In the light of the aforesaid stand and the evidence led on record by the Appellants-
Defendants, it was incumbent on the Respondents to have proved their title on the land,
which they failed to establish. As per the stand of the Appellants, the Respondents were
encroachers upon the land for which notice Under Section 92A of the 1959 Act was
issued to them. The same was replied to by the Respondents stating therein that they
have patta executed in their favour by the Gram Panchayat.
21.1. Further a suit simpliciter for injunction may not be maintainable as the title of the
property of the Plaintiff/Respondent was disputed by the Appellants/Defendants. In such
a situation it was required for the Respondent/Plaintiff to prove the title of the property
while praying for injunction. Reference can be made to the judgment of this Court in
Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) by Lrs. and Ors. MANU/SC/7376/2008 :
2008:INSC:395 : (2008) 4 SCC 594.
21.2. In view of aforesaid discussions, in our opinion, the judgment of the High Court
suffers from patent illegality. Consequently, the judgment and decree of the First
Appellate Court as well as the High Court are set aside and that of the Trial Court is
restored. As a consequence, the suit filed by the Respondents is dismissed.
C.A. Nos. 8977/2012, 468/2013, 524/2013, 467/2013 and Civil Appeal @ S.L.P.(C) No.
25200/2013
22. In the aforesaid bunch of appeals, Radheshyam son of Bhagwati Prasad and his
family members, as detailed below filed five civil suits praying for permanent
injunction:

22.1. The Trial Court decided the suits vide judgment and decree dated 30.04.2008.
The First Appellate Court decided the appeals vide judgment dated 19.04.2004.
22.2. Civil Suits were filed claiming that the land in question was leased out to the
02-01-2025 (Page 7 of 12) www.manupatra.com Pondicherry University Legal Consultant
Plaintiffs on 27.08.1985 (as is evident from the judgment of the Trial Court). However,
in the documents annexed with the I.A. No. 148204 in C.A. No. 8977 of 2012, the
transaction is shown to be sale. Though no prayer was made in the suit seeking a
declaration as owner of the land as it was simpliciter for permanent injunction still the
Trial Court framed the issue 'whether the disputed plot is of the ownership and
possession of the Plaintiff'. The second issue frame was 'as to whether the Plaintiff is
entitled to permanent injunction'. Both the issues were taken up together. While
discussing the Issue No. 1, the court recorded the ownership part was not to be gone
into as it was merely a suit for permanent injunction but still it was to be considered as
to whether the possession was valid or not. In support of his plea the
Plaintiff/Respondent placed on record the document dated 27.08.1985, the lease deed.
However, the same was not proved. The court also considered about the right of the
Gram Panchayat to lease out the land with reference to the Rules applicable therefor.
Finally, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that no case was made out by the
Plaintiff/Respondent. Hence, the suit for permanent injunction was dismissed by the
Trial Court on 30.04.2003.
22.3. The judgment and decree in all the suits were challenged by filing appeals. The
First Appellate Court without considering the fact as to whether the alleged lease deed
Ext.E-1 was proved by the Respondent-Plaintiff in accordance with law, had shifted the
burden on Defendants to prove otherwise. The issue regarding competence of the Gram
Panchayat to lease out the land was just brushed aside. The appeal was accepted and
decree of permanent injunction was passed by the First Appellate Court against which
the appeal(s) were filed by the present Appellants before the High Court. The same was
disposed of in terms of the impugned judgment, though the issues were not identical.
22.4. It is admitted by all the Respondents/Plaintiffs in the bunch of appeals that the
individual lease deeds were issued in their favour on 27.08.1985 by the Gram
Panchayat.
22.5. The stand of the Appellants is that the lease deeds were executed in
contravention of Rule 266 of the 1961 Rules, which provides that Panchayat may
transfer any land by way of private negotiation in case any person has a plausible claim
of title and auction may not fetch reasonable price, where for reasons to be recorded in
writing, the Panchayat thinks that auction would not be convenient mode for disposal or
where such a course is regarded by the Panchayat for advancement of Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes or other Backward Classes.
23. In Chapter XIII of the 1961 Rules, complete procedure has been provided for sale
of abadi land.
23.1. Rule 255 defines 'abadi land' to mean nazul land lying within the inhabited areas
of Panchayat circle.
23.2. Under Rule 256, a person desirous of purchasing the abadi land can file an
application in writing along with requisite fee.
23.3. On receipt of application, in terms of Rule 257, a plan of the land in question is
to be prepared specifying the boundaries of the land to be sold.
23.4. After the plan is ready, local inspection of the site is to be made by three
nominated Panchs who will submit their opinion on the following issues:
(a) whether the sale applied for will affect the facilities for going and coming
02-01-2025 (Page 8 of 12) www.manupatra.com Pondicherry University Legal Consultant
 enjoyed by the villagers;
(b) whether such sale will affect the rights of easements owned by other
persons;
(c) whether such sale will affect beauty and cleanliness of the locality; and
(d) such other matters as may appear to be relevant (Rule 258).
23.5. A provisional decision is to be taken by the Panchayat as to whether the proposed
sale should or should not be made (Rule 259).
23.6. If the decision is to sell the land, public notice is to be issued on Form 'L' inviting
objections to the proposed sale (Rule 260).
23.7. Objections, if any, received are to be dispose of after affording opportunity of
hearing to the objector (Rule 261).
23.8. If no objections are received, the Panchayat shall pass a resolution and order for
sale of the land by auction and date and time thereof shall be fixed (Rule 262).
23.9. The procedure for auction, deposit of earnest money, confirmation of sale have
been provided in Rules 262 and 265.
23.10. Rule 266 provides for transfer of abadi land by private negotiations in certain
specified situations, namely:
(a) where any person has a plausible claim of the title of the land and the
auction may not fetch reasonable price;
(b) where for the reasons to be recorded in writing, the Panchayat opines that
auction may not be convenient mode for disposal of land;
(c) where such a course is regarded by the Panchayat necessary for
advancement of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes or other backward
classes; and
(d) where the persons are in possession of abadi land for 20 years or more but
less than 42 years.
24. In the aforesaid situation, the land can be transferred by passing a resolution by
the Panchayat.
25. Relevant Rule 266 is extracted below:
266. Transfer of abadi land by private negotiation. -
(1) The Panchayat may transfer any abadi land by way of sale by private
negotiation in the following cases:
(a) Where any person has a plausible claim of title to the land and an
auction may not fetch reasonable price;
(b) where for reasons to be recorded in writing the Panchayat thinks
that an auction would not be a convenient mode of disposal of the
land;
02-01-2025 (Page 9 of 12) www.manupatra.com Pondicherry University Legal Consultant
 (c) where such course is regarded by the Panchayat necessary for the
advancement of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes or other
Backward Classes.
(d) where the persons are in possession of the abadi land for 20 years
or more but less than 42 years, one-third of the prevailing market price
and in case of possession of over 40 years, one sixth of the prevailing
market price shall be charged.
(2) The Panchayat may, by resolution, transfer by way of sale without charging
any price therefore, any abadi land of which the probable value does not exceed
Rs. 200/- in favour of any institution for a public purpose.
26. The allotment to all the allottees was on the same day i.e. 27.08.1985. Along with
I.A. No. 148204 of 2023 in C.A. No. 8977 of 2012, a copy of the register of sale deeds
of populated land on Form No. 49 has been annexed as Annexure R-6. The sale deeds
of land in favour of the Respondents are shown at Sr. Nos. 104 to 109. With reference
to Sr. Nos. 104 to 106, 108 and 109, the same are annexed as Annexures R-1 to R-5,
whereas the sale deed executed in favour of Sanjay Kumar son of Radheshyam (Sr. No.
107) is not available. In the appeals being considered by this Court, the matter
pertaining to Sanjay Kumar son of Radheshyam is not under consideration.
27. The following table will show the area leased out to the family members of the
same persons on the same date:

28. In Civil Appeal No. 8977 of 2012, originally the suit was filed by the Respondent
only for permanent injunction in the year 2002 with the pleading that on 09.02.2002, an
employee of the Town Improvement Trust visited the spot and threatened the
Respondent for forcible dispossession. Gram Panchayat, Village Kaladwas was not even
impleaded as party. No declaration was sought that the Respondent was owner in
possession of the plot, hence she could claim injunction. The only evidence led was in
the form of copy of lease deed dated 27.08.1985 where the Plaintiff appeared as PW1.
2 9 . As recorded by the Trial Court, the Respondents/Plaintiffs had not been able to
prove the document on the basis of which they were claiming a right of possession of
the property in question. Even if the aforesaid document is considered, the sale was
clearly violative of Rule 266 of the 1961 Rules, under which aforesaid alleged lease
deed/sale deed has been issued in favour of the Respondents/Plaintiffs. In terms of Rule
266 of the 1961 Rules, only in certain specified situation, the land could be transferred
by way of sale on private negotiation, namely, where any person has a plausible claim
of title to the land and auction may not fetch reasonable price or it may not be the
convenient mode for disposal of land or where such a course is regarded by the
02-01-2025 (Page 10 of 12) www.manupatra.com Pondicherry University Legal Consultant
Panchayat necessary for advancement of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes or
other Backward Classes. Another situation envisaged is where the person is in
possession of land for more than 20 years but less than 42 years. Nothing was
produced on record to show that the due process required for leasing out/sale of the
land in favour of the Respondents/Plaintiffs by private negotiation was followed. Gram
Panchayat from whom the land was taken was not impleaded as party to admit or deny
the allegations made by the Respondents/Plaintiffs in the plaint.
30. For the reasons, mentioned above, we find merit in the present appeals. The same
are accordingly allowed. The impugned judgments of the High Court as well as the First
Appellate Court are set aside and that of the Trial Court is restored. Resultantly, the
suits are dismissed.
31. Before parting with the order, we are pained to note certain facts which show total
casualness on the part of the Appellants. As has been noticed above, in the bunch of
five appeals bearing C.A. No(s).8977/2012, 468/2013, 524/2013, 467/2013 and Civil
Appeal arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 25200/2013, challenge was to the order passed by
the High Court in five different second appeals. Five different suits were filed by five
persons of the family which were assigned different numbers though decided on the
same day by separate judgments. Five different appeals were filed before the First
Appellate Court and when the matter was taken to the High Court, five different appeals
were filed. The same were disposed of on 18.04.2012.
32. When five different suits were filed by different persons while filing the documents
with the paper book filed in this Court, it was incumbent upon the Appellants to place
on record correct copies of the judgments of the Trial Court as well as the First
Appellate Court for each of the case. However, it is evident from the paper books of the
aforesaid five appeals that in all the appeals the Trial Court judgment placed on record
was passed in Case No. 60/2002 titled as Smt. Sumitra Devi w/o. Radheshyam Tripathi
dated 30.04.2003 and the judgment of the First Appellate Court placed on record in all
the appeals is Misc. Civil Appeal No. 01 of 2004 titled as Radheshyam son of Bhagwati
Prasad Tripathi dated 19.04.2004. The related judgments of the individual cases before
the Trial Court and the lower Appellate Court have not been placed on record in the
respective appeals. With great deal of effort to join the loose ends, we could find out
the details from the title of the impugned judgment of the High Court as the same
mentioned the civil suit number as well as the appeal number in the First Appellate
Court which was different in all five cases. It is evident from the table enumerated in
para 19.1 of the judgment. We can only observe that the parties need to be more
careful while filing the pleadings in this Court and so the Registry of this Court as any
error therein may be disastrous for any of the parties.

1 Civil Suit Case No. 153/99ED

2 Civil Judge (K-Kha) City (South) Udaipur
3 Additional District Judge, Udaipur
4 Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur
5 Judgment dated 14.07.2009 in Civil Second Appeal No. 06 of 2009
6 Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959
7 The Rajasthan Panchayat (General) Rules, 1961
8 Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

02-01-2025 (Page 11 of 12) www.manupatra.com Pondicherry University Legal Consultant

 © Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

02-01-2025 (Page 12 of 12) www.manupatra.com Pondicherry University Legal Consultant