The Tehsildar, Urban Improvement Trust and Anr. vs Ganga Bai Menariya (Dead) Through Lrs. and Others

Held: 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 u/s. 92A of the 1959 Act – 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 – In the revenue record produced on record by the appellants, it is shown that the land in question was shown in ownership of Government – 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 – 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 – In opinion of this Court, 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. [Paras 20,21,21.1,21.2] Rajasthan Panchayat (General) Rules, 1961 – r. 266 – In C.A. Nos.8977/2012, 468/2013, 524/2013, 467/2013 and Civil Appeal @ S.L.P.(C) No.25200/2013, civil suits were filed claiming that the land in question was leased out to the plaintiffs by the Gram Panchayat – In support of the plea, the plaintiff/respondent placed on record the document dated 27.08.1985, the lease deed – However, the same was not proved – 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 – First Appellate Court passed the decree of permanent injunction – Same was upheld by the High Court – Propriety:

Held: 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 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 – 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. [Paras 29, 30]