IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 241/2010 (Urban Improvement Trust, Alwar & Another Versus Ramakant) Date of Order :: 5th July, 2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH BHAGWATI Mr. R.K. Mathur, counsel for the appellants BY THE COURT:
Challenge in this second appeal is to the judgment and decree dated 29th January, 2010 rendered by Additional District & Sessions Judge No.2, Alwar as also the judgment and decree dated 15th December, 2004 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.1, Alwar in Civil Suit No. 310/2003, whereby both the learned courts below gave a concurrent finding with regard to the facts of the suit in favour of the respondent-plaintiff and the learned trial court decreed the suit against the appellants-defendant restraining them not to interfere with the use of land-in-dispute and the learned appellate court confirmed the same.
2. The facts of the case, in brief, run as under:
The respondent-plaintiff Rama Kant applied for a plot in Transport Nagar Scheme declared by the appellant-UIT, Alwar and the appellants-defendant allotted one plot no. 582 to the plaintiff. The plaintiff deposited 3000/- rupees in advance on 2nd January, 1993 and thereafter having deposited the entire residue amount with the UIT, took the possession of the said plot. It has been averred by the plaintiff that on 5th December, 1998, the plaintiff received a letter from the appellants-defendant, wherein it was stated that the number of his plot has been changed and as per the decision dated 24th February, 1998 and 8th March, 1998 of UIT, the price of the plot has been raised from 520 Rs. per Sq. Mtrs. to 924 Rs. per Sq. Mtrs. and further asked him to deposit Rs. 17,225/- more. The plaintiff challenged this letter dated 5th December, 1998 and filed a suit for permanent injunction, which was decreed by the learned Civil Judge in favour of the plaintiff-respondent.
Aggrieved with the judgment dated 15th December, 2004 passed by the Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate No.1, Alwar, the appellants-defendant filed an appeal in the Court of District Judge, Alwar, which came to be transferred to the court of Additional District Judge No.2, Alwar, who dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree rendered by Civil Judge, Alwar. This is the second appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants canvassed that a plot no. 582 was albeit allotted to the respondent-plaintiff in Transport Nagar Scheme and the plaintiff deposited only Rs. 22045.70/- with the UIT, Alwar, but the possession of the plot was never given to him. Meantime, the UIT Alwar enhanced the reserve price by 924 Rs. per Sq. Mtrs. and the respondent-plaintiff, thus, was liable to pay the price of the plot @ 924/- Rs. per Sq. Mtrs. When the appellants-defendant informed the respondent-plaintiff about it and raised the additional amount to be paid, the respondent-plaintiff filed a suit. The appellants neither handed over the possession of the plot to the plaintiff nor have yet released any lease deed in his favour. Learned counsel further contended that both the learned courts below sans appreciating the facts of the case, arbitrarily granted permanent injunction against the appellants and decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Mr. Mathur further canvassed that the appellants-defendant should not be restrained from realizing the remaining amount from the plaintiff and if the plaintiff does not deposit the amount, the allotment should be allowed to be cancelled.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants and carefully scanned the impugned judgments passed by the learned courts below, it is noticed that both the courts below have given concurrent finding with regard to the facts of the case. Second appeal can be admitted only when there is a substantial question of law involved. Learned counsel for the appellants has utterly failed to convince the Court that any substantial question was involved in this appeal. Bare reading of the suit, as narrated by the plaintiff, do demonstrates that the plaintiff-respondent was allotted plot no. 582 by the appellants-defendant in Transport Nagar scheme. It is an admitted fact that the plaintiff deposited the entire amount of the plot with the UIT. Initially, he deposited Rs. 3000/- in advance on 2nd January, 1993 and thereafter having deposited the remaining amount, he obtained the possession of the plot. Albeit, the learned counsel for the appellants has canvassed that the possession of the plot was yet not given to the plaintiff, but his argument is found to be totally baseless and groundless. The letter (Ex. 1) issued by the appellantsUIT, Alwar itself demonstrates that the plaintiff was asked to take the physical possession of the plot within a period of two weeks, failing which he shall be deemed to have taken the possession of the said plot. Further the plaintiff himself has come with the case that he is in possession of the plot no. 582, which has remained un-rebutted. The appellants-defendant also could not convince the courts below that the plaintiff was not in possession of the plot.
5. Secondly, it is highly astonishing that once UIT, Alwar allotted the plot in Transport Nagar scheme to the plaintiff @ 520 per Sq. Mtrs. and realized the entire amount from him, then how could the appellants demand the enhanced reserve price i.e. Rs. 924/- per Sq. Mtrs. after a lapse of 6 years and ask the plaintiff to deposit the remaining amount. UIT, Alwar is found to have issued these letters on 24th February, 1998 and 8th March, 1998, but how this enhanced reserve price could be made applicable in the case of the plaintiff. The plaintiff was already in possession of the said plot and he had already deposited the entire amount with the UIT. Thereafter, UITappellants had no reason to ask the plaintiff-defendant to deposit the balance amount @ 924/- Rs. per Sq. Mtrs. The additional demand of Rs. 17,225/- has been found to be most unreasonable and arbitrary by Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.1, Alwar as well as by Additional District & Sessions Judge No.2, Alwar. There is a concurrent finding of both the courts below in this regard. The impugned judgments rendered by the courts below seem to be just and proper and suffer from no infirmity or illegality and thus, they warrant no intervention. E Contra, inspite of there being no case, the appellantsUIT has filed this second appeal and the learned counsel for the appellants also utterly failed to convince this Court that any substantial question of law was involved therein. The second appeal is found to be totally devoid of any substance and the same deserves to be dismissed at the thresh-hold.
6. For the reasons stated above, the civil second appeal stands dismissed in limine.
(MAHESH BHAGWATI),J.
DK/