[ad_1]
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Mangilal vs Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Dhoru … on 12 August, 2025
Author: Nupur Bhati
Bench: Nupur Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:35927]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14897/2025
1. Mangilal S/o Shri Jalaram, aged about 61 years, Resident of
Village Dhoru, Tehsil Bhopalgarh, District Jodhpur (Rajasthan)
2. Shrawanram S/o Shri Mangilal, aged about 43 years, Resident
of Village Dhoru, Tehsil Bhopalgarh, District Jodhpur
(Rajasthan)
3. Bhakar Ram S/o Shri Mangilal, aged about 37 years, Resident
of Village Dhoru, Tehsil Bhopalgarh, District Jodhpur
(Rajasthan)
4. Poonaram S/o Shri Hariram, aged about 64 years, Resident of
Village Dhoru, Tehsil Bhopalgarh, District Jodhpur (Rajasthan)
5. Sahiram S/o Shri Poonaram, aged about 29 years, Resident of
Village Dhoru, Tehsil Bhopalgarh, District Jodhpur (Rajasthan)
6. Rampal S/o Shri Poonaram, aged about 31 years, Resident of
Village Dhoru, Tehsil Bhopalgarh, District Jodhpur (Rajasthan)
7. Tejaram S/o Shri Sujaram, aged about 60 years, Resident of
Village Dhoru, Tehsil Bhopalgarh, District Jodhpur (Rajasthan)
8. Prakash S/o Shri Tejaram, aged about 29 years, Resident of
Village Dhoru, Tehsil Bhopalgarh, District Jodhpur (Rajasthan)
9. Dinesh S/o Shri Tejaram, aged about 32 years, Resident of
Village Dhoru, Tehsil Bhopalgarh, District Jodhpur (Rajasthan)
10. Shyamlal S/o Shri Babulal, aged about 31 years, Resident of
Village Dhoru, Tehsil Bhopalgarh, District Jodhpur (Rajasthan)
11. Chutararam S/o Shri Dhannaram, aged about 41 years,
Resident of Village Dhoru, Tehsil Bhopalgarh, District Jodhpur
(Rajasthan)
----Petitioners
Versus
Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Dhoru, Tehsil Bhopalgarh, District
Jodhpur (Rajasthan)
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sharad Vyas.
(Downloaded on 15/08/2025 at 10:14:54 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:35927] (2 of 7) [CW-14897/2025]
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 227 of the Constitution
of India seeking following relief(s):
“a) by an appropriate writ, order or direction the writ
petition filed by the petitioners/applicants may kindly be
allowed.
b) by an appropriate writ, order or direction,
impugned Orders dated 02.07.2025 (Annx.4) passed by
the learned Civil Judge, Bhopalgarh, District Jodhpur in
Civil Misc. Case No. 05/2025 titled as “Mangilal & ors.
VS. Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Dhoru” as well as dated
21.07.2025 passed by the learned District Judge,
Jodhpur District in Civil Appeal Order No. 10/2025 titled
as “Mangilal & ors. vs. Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat
Dhoru” may kindly be declared illegal and accordingly,
be quashed and set aside.
c) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the
application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C.
(Annx.2) filed by the petitioners/applicants may kindly
be ordered to be allowed as prayed for throughout with
costs.
d) Any other appropriate order, which this Hon’ble
Court deems just and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in
favour of the petitioners.
e) Cost of the writ petition may please be awarded in
favour of the petitioners.”
2. The petitioners are challenging the validity of orders dated
21.07.2025 (Annex.5) and 02.07.2025 (Annex.4) passed by the
learned District Judge, Jodhpur, and the Civil Judge, Bhopalgarh,
respectively, vide which, their appeal and application for a
temporary injunction under Order XXXIX, Rule 1 & 2 read with
Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity,
hereinafter referred to as ÇPC’), in a civil suit for permanent
injunction filed against the respondent, the Sarpanch of Gram
Panchayat Dhoru (Annex.1), were rejected.
(Downloaded on 15/08/2025 at 10:14:54 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:35927] (3 of 7) [CW-14897/2025]
2.1. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioners
filed a suit for permanent injunction against the
respondent/defendant with respect to residential houses and a
Bada on the land comprising Khasra No.497/9, measuring 1.6187
hectares in Village Dhoru, which was in their possession since
ancestral times, where they have built certain kuchcha/pucca
houses, a Bada for cattle, and secured electricity connections.
Approximately 10 Bighas of this land was converted to residential
use 20 years ago, now designated as Khasra No. 497/9. The
petitioners claimed adverse possession over the property/land in
question, which they have continuously used and occupied.
However, due to village politics and animosity, the respondent
issued notices on 06.12.2023 and 28.01.2025, attempting to
dispossess them.
2.2. It was further pleaded that the petitioners applied for
issuance of Patta before the Gram Panchayat Dhoru, which was
not issued due to political motives, despite their willingness to pay
the requisite fees. They also served a legal notice on 05.12.2024
under Section 109 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Raj Act, asserting
their rights. The petitioners pleaded that a prima facie case,
balance of convenience, and irreparable loss favor them, as
dispossession would violate their legitimate rights.
3. The respondent/defendant, in reply to the injunction
application (Annex.3), denied these claims, alleging the
application was fraudulent and aimed at usurping government
property.
4. The learned Civil Judge, Bhopalgarh, District Jodhpur vide
order dated 02.07.2025 (Annex.4) rejected the injunction, and the
(Downloaded on 15/08/2025 at 10:14:54 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:35927] (4 of 7) [CW-14897/2025]
learned District Judge in an appeal preferred by the petitioners
herein, vide its order dated 21.07.2025 (Annex.5) upheld the
order dated 02.07.2025 (Annex.4), against which the petitioners
have filed the instant writ petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution, asserting that the orders are illegal and unjust and
thus deserves to be quashed.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the trial
court committed a grave error of law and fact in its order dated
02.07.2025 (Annex.4), rejecting the petitioners’ application for
temporary injunction under Order XXXIX, Rule 1 & 2 of the C.P.C.
(Annex.2), and the appellate court has also erred in dismissing the
appeal vide its order dated 21.07.2025 (Annex.5) without properly
analyzing the facts, evidence, and legal position, rendering both
orders illegal, unjust, and perverse. He submits that the
petitioners are in possession of the residential property and Bada
on Khasra No. 497/9 in Village Dhoru since ancestral times, and
they have established ownership through adverse possession,
supported by electricity connections and use of the Bada for cattle
and fodder storage. The counsel emphasizes that the essential
ingredients for granting temporary injunction viz. prima facie case,
balance of convenience, and irreparable loss–are fulfilled, as
dispossession would cause irreparable harm, yet both courts
overlooked this, making their orders unsustainable.
5.1. Further, the counsel contends that the petitioners provided
cogent evidence of long-standing possession and applied for
pattas from the Gram Panchayat Dhoru, which were not issued
due to political animosity, despite the petitioners’ readiness to pay
requisite fees. The respondent’s notices dated 06.12.2023 and
(Downloaded on 15/08/2025 at 10:14:54 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:35927] (5 of 7) [CW-14897/2025]
28.01.2025 to dispossess the petitioners, without deciding their
patta applications, indicate an intent to illegally evict them, which
would prejudice their case and frustrate the suit’s purpose if the
injunction is not granted.
5.2. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the
courts below failed to evaluate the evidence establishing the
petitioners’ possession and did not determine the prima facie case,
balance of convenience, and irreparable loss in their favor,
rendering the orders legally unsustainable.
5.3. Finally, it is submitted that allowing the impugned orders to
stand would lead to the petitioners’ eviction, frustrating the suit’s
purpose and causing a miscarriage of justice, necessitating their
quashing and an order for the respondent to maintain the status
quo until the suit’s disposal.
6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the
material on record.
7. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and
perusing the case file, this Court finds that the writ petition under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India lacks merit and does not
warrant interference with the impugned orders dated 02.07.2025
(Annex.4) and 21.07.2025 (Annex.5) for the reason that
petitioners’ claim of adverse possession over the residential
property and Bada on Khasra No. 497/9 in Village Dhoru,
supported by their long-standing possession, electricity
connections, and use of the land, does not sufficiently establish a
prima facie case for granting a temporary injunction.
8. The trial court, in its order dated 02.07.2025 (Annex.4), and
the appellate court, in its order dated 21.07.2025 (Annex.5), have
(Downloaded on 15/08/2025 at 10:14:54 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:35927] (6 of 7) [CW-14897/2025]
adequately considered the material and evidence on record,
including the respondent’s reply (Annex.3) alleging that the
petitioners’ application was fraudulent and aimed at usurping
government property. Both the courts found no compelling
evidence to substantiate the petitioners’ claim of adverse
possession and also no reason to allow the application only
because the petitioners applied for Patta, particularly in light of
the respondent’s notices dated 06.12.2023 and 28.01.2025 for
eviction of petitioner from the land in question, which indicate the
disputed land’s governmental ownership.
9. The petitioners’ assertion that the Gram Panchayat’s refusal
to issue pattas was driven by political animosity is not supported
by conclusive evidence, and their application for pattas does not
automatically confer a legal right to the property. Furthermore,
the essential ingredients for a temporary injunction–prima facie
case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss–have not been
convincingly demonstrated.
10. The petitioners have failed to show that dispossession would
cause irreparable harm incapable of being remedied through the
final adjudication of the suit. Their findings are based on a
reasonable assessment of the evidence, and the dismissal of the
temporary injunction application and the subsequent appeal does
not reflect perversity or illegality warranting interference under
the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court.
11. It is observed that the denial of a temporary injunction does
not preclude the petitioners of their right to pursue the main suit
for permanent injunction, where their claims of adverse
possession can be fully adjudicated. The issuance of notices by the
(Downloaded on 15/08/2025 at 10:14:54 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:35927] (7 of 7) [CW-14897/2025]
respondent/defendant and the ongoing proceedings before the
Gram Panchayat further suggest that the matter is under due
process, and no case is made out for maintaining the status quo
pending the suit’s disposal. Further, both the learned courts, after
perusal of the record, have concurrently held that in the revenue
record, the land was mutated in the name of defendant and the
petitioners were notified by issuing notice to vacate the land in
question as they were in occupation of the land in question
illegally and no documents with respect to ownership of the
petitioners/plaintiff were even placed on record. Both the courts
have rightly observed that the petitioners/plaintiffs, in their plaint,
nowhere pleaded that they are sought to be ousted from the land
in question without following the due process of law.
Consequently, the impugned orders are neither illegal nor unjust,
and the petitioners’ prayer for quashing them and allowing the
temporary injunction application cannot be granted.
12. In view of above discussion, this Court finds no force in this
petition and, therefore, the writ petition as also stay petition are
dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand dismissed.
(DR. NUPUR BHATI),J
50-DJ/-
(Downloaded on 15/08/2025 at 10:14:54 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_2]
Source link