{"id":108031,"date":"2008-07-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-06-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/roshan-lal-vs-m-b-amet-on-1-july-2008"},"modified":"2018-06-02T00:52:22","modified_gmt":"2018-06-01T19:22:22","slug":"roshan-lal-vs-m-b-amet-on-1-july-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/roshan-lal-vs-m-b-amet-on-1-july-2008","title":{"rendered":"Roshan Lal vs M.B.Amet on 1 July, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur<\/div>\n
Roshan Lal vs M.B.Amet on 1 July, 2008<\/div>\n
                                   1\n\n         S.B. CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO. 102\/2008.\n             Roshan Lal      Vs.   Municipal Board, Amet\n\n\nDate of Order ::          1st July 2008.\n\n      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI\n\nMr. Pradeep Shah, for the appellant\n                             ....\n\nBY THE COURT:<\/pre>\n
      This second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff-<\/p>\n
appellant against the appellate judgment and decree dated<\/p>\n
18.09.2007 as passed by the Additional District Judge (Fast<\/p>\n
Track), Rajsamand in Civil Appeal No. 07\/2007 (Old No.<\/p>\n
24\/1997)    whereby,      while    reversing   the   decree   dated<\/p>\n
06.12.1996 for mandatory and perpetual injunction as passed<\/p>\n
by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Deogarh in Civil Original<\/p>\n
Suit No. 10\/1996, the learned Appellate Court has dismissed<\/p>\n
the suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant.\n<\/p>\n
      The relevant aspects of the case as emerging from the<\/p>\n
judgments of the subordinate Courts could be noticed thus: On<\/p>\n
06.02.1990, the plaintiff-appellant filed the suit for prohibitory<\/p>\n
and mandatory injunction and for recovery of an amount of<\/p>\n
Rs.10,000\/- towards damages while complaining that the<\/p>\n
Municipal Board, Amet (defendant No.1 – hereinafter            also<\/p>\n
referred to as ‘the Board’) has illegally and without any<\/p>\n
justification constructed a drain in front of his shop providing its
\n                               2<\/span><\/p>\n
flow adjacent to the northern and eastern side walls of his<\/p>\n
shop; and while alleging such act being unauthorized and<\/p>\n
improper, and having been actuated by the intentions of<\/p>\n
vengeance on the part of the Executive Officer of the<\/p>\n
Municipal Board (defendant No.2), the plaintiff submitted that<\/p>\n
the drain in question has caused substantial nuisance and<\/p>\n
inconvenience affecting his health and business. The plaintiff<\/p>\n
averred that the offending drain was constructed in a wholly<\/p>\n
unauthorised manner in the night of 07.06.1989 in his<\/p>\n
absence; that he took proceedings before the Additional<\/p>\n
Collector, Rajsamand and obtained a stay order, yet the<\/p>\n
construction of the disputed drain was completed. The plaintiff<\/p>\n
also alleged that earlier the drain water had been flowing on<\/p>\n
the back side of his property going towards south and for its<\/p>\n
proper joining with the stream, only about 40 feet drain-line<\/p>\n
was required to be completed whereas laying of the present<\/p>\n
drain has caused a difference of about 300 feet. The plaintiff<\/p>\n
prayed for injunction in the nature that the disputed drain be<\/p>\n
closed and the position ante be restored; and also claimed<\/p>\n
damages for physical and mental in the sum of Rs.10,000\/-.<\/p>\n
      The defendants contested the suit denying the plaint<\/p>\n
averments and, while denying the allegations that the drain in<\/p>\n
question   was constructed     to   harass   the   plaintiff, the<\/p>\n
defendants maintained that the work was carried out for public
\n                                3<\/span><\/p>\n
convenience and submitted that construction of such a drain<\/p>\n
was necessary in view of the order passed by the District<\/p>\n
Forum Consumer Protection, Udaipur on 17.05.1989. It was<\/p>\n
also pointed out that functioning of the earlier drainage system<\/p>\n
had been causing difficulties because the spillover of<\/p>\n
discharged water got collected in front of the office of Junior<\/p>\n
Engineer of the Electricity Board and then, at the Bus Stand<\/p>\n
and the Tehsil office. The defendants pointed out that laying of<\/p>\n
the drain near the said Junior Engineer’s Office would have<\/p>\n
required expensive construction of a culvert that was not<\/p>\n
agreed to by the Public Works Department.\n<\/p>\n
      The suit was put to trial after framing of the following<\/p>\n
issues:-\n<\/p>\n
      “1-  \u0915 \u092a\u0924 \u0935 \u0926 \u0928 \u0935 \u0926 \u092a\u0924 \u0915 \u092a\u0930 \u0938. 3 \u092e \u0935\u0930
\n      \u0915 \u0905\u0928\u0938 \u0930 \u0928 \u0932 \u092c\u0928 \u0932 \u0930 \u0938 \u0928 \u0932 \u0915 \u092c\u0928 \u0928 \u0915
\n      \u092a\u0924 \u0935 \u0926 \u0915 \u0905\u0924 \u0915 \u0930 \u0928\u0939 \u0939 \u0964<\/p>\n
                                      — \u0935 \u0926 —\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
      2-   \u0915  \u0935 \u0926 \u092a\u0924 \u0915 \u092a\u0930 \u0938. 1 \u092e \u0935\u0930             \u0926\u0915 \u0928 \u0915#\n      \u0915\u092d \u092d \u0928 \u0932 \u0938 \u092a \u0928 \u0928\u0939 \u092c\u0939                    \u0939     \u0905\u092c\n      \u0928\u0917\u0930\u092a \u0924\u0932\u0915 \u0910\u0938 \u0928\u0939 \u0915\u0930 \u0938\u0915 \u0964\n                                                -- \u0935 \u0926 --\n\n\n      3-    \u0915   \u092a\u0924 \u0935 \u0926 \u0917 \u0915 \u0928 \u0932 \u092c\u0928 \u0928 \u0938 \u0935 \u0926 \u0915\n      \u0928 \u0938( \u0938 \u0935 \u0935 \u092a \u0930 \u092e \u0939 \u0928 \u0939\u0908 \u0925 \u0935 \u0926 \u0915# \u0938\u092e\u092a\u0924.\n      \u0915 \u0928\u0915\u0938 \u0928 \u0939\u0906 \u0926\u0926 \u0939       \u0909\u0938\u0915 \u0915 \u092a\u092d \u0935 \u0939 \u0964\n                                      -- \u0935 \u0926 -\n\n\n      4-    \u0905\u0928 \u0937 \u0964\"\n                                 4<\/span>\n\n<\/pre>\n
         After taking the evidence adduced by the parties, the<\/p>\n
learned Trial Court referred to the duties and responsibilities of<\/p>\n
the Municipal Board relating to sanitation and observed that<\/p>\n
the defendants have failed to show, and have not examined<\/p>\n
any independent witness to establish, if construction of the<\/p>\n
drain at the disputed place was entirely necessary in public<\/p>\n
interest and that no other medium or method was available.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
The learned Trial Court also observed that the defendant had<\/p>\n
earlier considered the proposition of construction of a culvert<\/p>\n
for proper discharge of water and, therefore, mere carrying of<\/p>\n
drain from the disputed place cannot be said to be proper and<\/p>\n
construction of culvert cannot be regarded as misuse of funds.<\/p>\n
The learned Trial Court observed that the disputed drain,<\/p>\n
placed adjoining the house and shop of the plaintiff appeared<\/p>\n
to be taking substantial discharge of filthy water; and it could<\/p>\n
not be said that there had been any justification, and proper<\/p>\n
and sufficient cause, to construct the drain at the disputed<\/p>\n
place.\n<\/p>\n
         The elaborate discussion of the learned Trial Court on<\/p>\n
issue No.1 culminated into the findings that the drain in<\/p>\n
question did not appear to have been constructed at the<\/p>\n
disputed place in proper exercise of powers by the defendants.<\/p>\n
The learned Trial Court has thus expressed its conclusion on<\/p>\n
issue No.1 :\n<\/p>\n
                                 5<\/span><\/p>\n
      “\u0907\u0938 \u092a\u0915 \u0930 \u0924\u0935\u0935 \u0926\u0926  \u0938\u0925 \u0928 \u092a\u0930 \u092c\u0928 \u0908 \u0917\u0908 \u0928 \u0932
\n      \u092a\u0924 \u0935 \u0926 \u0917  \u0926 \u0930 \u0909\u0928\u0915 \u0905\u0924 \u0915 \u09306 \u0915 \u0938\u0939 \u0922\u0917 \u0938
\n      \u092a \u0917 \u0915\u0930\u0928 \u0928\u0939 \u092c\u0928        \u0928 \u0926\u09249\u092a   \u0939   \u0939 \u0964\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        \u0928\u0915# \u0915 \u0924\u0928    \u0907\u0938 \u092a\u0915 \u0930 \u0935 \u0926 \u0915 \u092a\u0915 \u092e \u0926\u0915\n           \u0939 \u0964\"\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
      The learned Trial Court proceeded to decide issue No.2<\/p>\n
on the basis of its discussion on issue No.1 and observed that<\/p>\n
the place in dispute was not of the natural flow of the water<\/p>\n
nor in the past any water had been discharged to that side<\/p>\n
and, therefore, laying of the drain near the plaintiff’s shop or<\/p>\n
flow of water therefrom cannot be said to be proper nor was<\/p>\n
necessary for lawful exercise of the powers of the Municipal<\/p>\n
Board.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      Issue No.3 was framed on the question if the plaintiff<\/p>\n
has suffered nuisance and loss in his business and to his<\/p>\n
property due to the drain in question. The learned Trial Court,<\/p>\n
however, did not find any reason to award damages to the<\/p>\n
plaintiff and decided issue No.3 against the plaintiff with the<\/p>\n
observations the plaintiff, PW-1,        though stated having<\/p>\n
suffered a loss of Rs.15,000\/- but failed to adduce any specific<\/p>\n
evidence as to how and in what manner did he suffer such a<\/p>\n
loss. The learned Trial Court even observed that the plaintiff<\/p>\n
has failed to establish if he has suffered any substantial loss or<\/p>\n
damages due to the alleged pollution. The Trial Court also
\n                               6<\/span><\/p>\n
observed that it was not proved if the drain in question was<\/p>\n
constructed by the defendant No.2 for any enmity with the<\/p>\n
plaintiff but reiterated its finding that it were not in proper<\/p>\n
exercise of the powers under the Municipalities Act in<\/p>\n
accordance with law. The learned Trial Court decided issue<\/p>\n
No. 3 against the plaintiff with the following observations and<\/p>\n
findings:-\n<\/p>\n
      \"\u092a\u0926\u0937(      \u0939\u0928 \u0935\u0926 \u0928 \u092c        \u0914\u0930 \u0917\u0928\u0926\u0917 \u0939 \u0928\n      \u0915\u0939 \u0909\u0938 \u0939 \u0915 \u0908 \u0935 \u0926 \u0915 \u0938 \u0930\u0935 \u0928 \u0915\u0924         \u0939 \u0928\n      \u0939\u0906 \u0939 \u0910\u0938 \u0935 \u0926 \u0928 \u0938 \u0924\u092c \u0928\u0939 \u0926\u0915        \u0964 \u0924\u0935\u0935 \u0926\u0926\n      \u0928\u0932        \u092a\u0924 \u0935 \u0926 \u0917  \u0926 \u0930 \u092c\u0928 \u0908 \u0917\u0908 \u0935 \u0928 \u0932\n      \u092a\u0924 \u0935 \u0926 \u0938. 2 \u0926 \u0930 \u0935 \u0926 \u0915 \u0938 \u0925 \u0935\u092e\u0928\u0938      \u0935 \u0926\u0937\n      \u0930\u0916 \u0915 \u092c\u0928 \u0908 \u0917\u0908 \u0939 \u0910\u0938       \u0938 \u0924\u092c \u0928\u0939 \u0939    \u092a\u0930\u0928\n      \u092c\u0928 \u0908 \u0917\u0908 \u0928 \u0932 \u0909\u0924=      \u0935 \u0924\u0935\u0924   \u0905\u0928\u0915\u0932 \u0922\u0917 \u0938\n      \u0928\u0917\u0930\u092a \u0924\u0932\u0915 \u0905\u0924 \u0924\u0928 \u092e \u092e \u092a\u0926. \u0936\u0924? 6 \u0915 \u0938\u0939\n        \u0930 \u0915 \u0938 \u0927 \u0928 \u092e \u0930\u0916\u0915\u0930 \u0926\u0915 \u0917 \u0939 \u0939 \u0928\u0939 \u0915\u0939\n            \u0938\u0915 \u0939 \u0964 \u0907\u0938 \u092a\u0915 \u0930 \u0935 \u0926 \u092a\u0924 \u0935 \u0926 \u0917 \u0938 \u0915 \u0908\n      \u0939 \u0928 \u0930 \u0936 \u0930\u092a 10 \u0939 \u0930 \u092a \u0928 \u0915 \u0905\u0924 \u0915 \u0930 \u0928\u0939\n      \u0939      \u0907\u0938 \u0928\u0915# \u0915 \u0924\u0928    \u0935 \u0926 \u0915 \u0924\u0935\u0930\u0926 \u0926\u0915\n      \u0939 \u0964\"\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
      As a result of its discussion and findings on the issues,<\/p>\n
the learned Trial Court partly decreed the suit and issued<\/p>\n
mandatory and perpetual injunction against the defendants,<\/p>\n
while rejecting the claim of the plaintiff for damages, in the<\/p>\n
following terms:-\n<\/p>\n
      “(1)   \u0906\u0926\u0936 \u0924\u092e\u0915 \u0924\u0928\u0937 \u091c \u092c\u0939\u0915 \u0935 \u0926 \u0930\u0916\u0932 \u092b
\n      \u092a\u0924 \u0935 \u0926 \u0917 \u0938. 1, \u0968 \u0907\u0938 \u0905\u092e\u0930 \u0915#      \u0930 \u0915#      \u0939
\n      \u0926\u0915 \u092a\u0924 \u0935 \u0926 \u0917 \u0924\u0935\u0935 \u0926\u0926 \u0928 \u0932        \u0932\u0915\u092e \u092c \u0930 \u0915#
\n      \u0938\u0921\u0915 \u0915 \u0915 \u091f\u0915\u0930 \u0935 \u0926 \u0915# \u0926\u0915 \u0928 \u0915 \u092a(\u0935J \u0935 \u0909.\u0930
\n      \u0926 \u0935 \u0930 \u0915 \u0938\u0939 \u0930 \u092c\u0928 \u0908 \u0917\u0908 \u0939, \u0909\u0938 \u0924\u0928    \u0915# \u0926\u0926\u0928 \u0915 \u0915
\n        \u0928 \u092e \u0939 \u0915# \u0905\u0935\u0924 \u0915 \u092d \u0930 \u0905\u092a\u0928 \u0916=K \u0938 \u0935\u0939 \u0938
\n                                7<\/span><\/p>\n
      \u0939\u091f \u0917 \u0935 \u0932\u0915\u092e \u092c \u0930 \u0915           \u092a \u0928 \u0928 \u0924\u0932 6 \u0915
\n        \u0930\u0930 \u0906    \u0939 \u0909\u0938 \u092a \u0928 \u0915 \u092c\u0939 \u0935 \u0939 \u0938\u092e\u0924= \u0935
\n      \u092a\u092d \u0935 \u0922\u0917 \u0938 \u092a \u0928 \u0915 \u092a\u0935 \u0939 \u0915 \u0927 \u0928 \u092e \u0930\u0916 \u0939\u090f
\n      \u0915\u0908 \u0928\u0932      \u0921\u0928 \u092c\u0928 \u0917 \u0914\u0930 \u0909\u0938 \u0915 \u0930\u0930 \u0935 \u0909?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      \u092a \u0928 \u0915 \u092a\u0935 \u0926\u0939 \u0915\u0930\u0928 \u0915# \u0935 \u0935\u0938\u0925 \u092d \u0915\u0930\u0917 \u0935
\n      \u0924\u092e\u091f\u091f \u092d\u0930 \u0915\u0930 \u0924\u0935\u0935 \u0926\u0926 \u092a(\u0930 \u0928 \u0932 \u0915 \u092c\u0928\u0926 \u0915\u0930\u0917 \u0964<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n\n\n      (2)   \u0938\u0925   \u0924\u0928\u0937 \u091c \u092c\u0939\u0915 \u0935 \u0926 \u0924\u0935\u0930\u0926 \u092a\u0924 \u0935 \u0926 \u0917\n      \u0938. 1 \u0935 2 \u0907\u0938 \u0905\u092e\u0930 \u0938   \u0930 \u0915#    \u0939 \u0926\u0915 \u0935 \u0926 \u0915#\n      \u0926\u0915 \u0928 \u0915 \u0938 \u092e\u0928 \u0935 \u0938\u0939 \u0930, \u0932\u0915\u092e \u092c \u0930 \u0915# \u0928 \u0924\u0932 6 \u0915\n      \u092a \u0928 \u0915 \u092c\u0939 \u0935 \u0939      \u0915 \u0908 \u0928 \u0932 \u0928\u0939 \u092c\u0928 \u0917, \u0928\n      \u092c\u0928\u0935 \u0917 \u0964\n\n\n      (3)   \u0935\u0926 \u0915 \u0935\u0926 \u092c\u092c \u0939            \u0928 \u0930\u092a     10000 \u0924\u0935\u0930\u0926\n      \u092a\u0924 . \u0938. 1 \u0935 2 \u0916 \u0930\u0930 \u0926\u0915           \u0939 \u0964\n\n\n      (4)  \u092e \u092e\u0932 \u0915# \u0925    \u092a\u0930\u0930\u0930\u0938\u0925\u0924 6 \u0915 \u0926\u0916                 \u0939\u090f\n      \u092a\u0915\u0915 \u0930 \u0928 \u0916= \u0905\u092a\u0928 -\u0905\u092a\u0928 \u0935\u0939\u0928 \u0915\u0930\u0917 \u0964\"\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
      The appeals taken by the defendant Board against the<\/p>\n
decree for injunction and by the plaintiff Roshan Lal against<\/p>\n
denial of damages have been heard and decided together by<\/p>\n
the Additional District Judge (Fast Track), Rajsamand by the<\/p>\n
impugned judgment and decree dated 18.09.2007. The<\/p>\n
learned Appellate Court has observed that though the plaintiff<\/p>\n
has been complaining of nuisance because of the drain in<\/p>\n
question but the said drain is running in front of the properties<\/p>\n
of other persons too and nobody else has filed any suit. The<\/p>\n
learned Appellate Court has referred to the statement of PW-3<\/p>\n
Chatarlal on his admission that the discharged water earlier
\n                                 8<\/span><\/p>\n
got collected at the Bus Stand and after construction of the<\/p>\n
drain in question, such water does not get clogged and flows<\/p>\n
down to the stream. The learned Appellate Court has also<\/p>\n
referred to the statement of PW-4 Prakash Chandra admitting<\/p>\n
the facts about earlier collection of water at the road, Bus<\/p>\n
Stand and Tehsil and now the water flowing smoothly through<\/p>\n
the drain in question.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      The learned Appellate Court has observed that in view<\/p>\n
of the statements of the plaintiff’s witnesses it is apparent that<\/p>\n
the water clogging problem has been solved and clearly,<\/p>\n
therefore, construction of the drain in question was necessary<\/p>\n
to remove public nuisance. The learned Appellate Court has<\/p>\n
held the construction of the drain in question proper and has<\/p>\n
pointed out that the Court is not to interfere unless it were a<\/p>\n
case of substantial injury to any person. In the present case,<\/p>\n
according to the learned Appellate Court, it was wrong to<\/p>\n
suggest that the Board had no authority to lay the drain and to<\/p>\n
get the water discharged therefrom; and that the work<\/p>\n
executed by the Board being in public interest called for no<\/p>\n
interference by the Court.          The learned Appellate Court<\/p>\n
decided issues Nos. 1 and 2 against the plaintiff with the<\/p>\n
following observations and findings:-\n<\/p>\n
      “\u0907\u0938 \u0930\u0939 \u0938\u0935 \u0935 \u0926 \u0926 \u0930 \u092a\u0936 \u0938 \u0930\u0915 6 \u0915 \u0915\u0925\u09286 \u0938
\n        \u0939 \u0938\u092a9 \u0930\u092a \u0938 \u0938 \u0924\u092c \u0939    \u0939 \u0926\u0915 \u0907\u0938 \u0928 \u0932 \u0915
\n      \u092c\u0928\u0928 \u0938 \u092a\u0939\u0932 \u092a \u0928 \u0924\u092c \u0932 \u0924\u0935\u092d \u0917 \u0915 \u0915\u0924\u0928\u0937
\n                                 9<\/span><\/p>\n
      \u0905\u0924\u092d \u0928     \u0915 \u0915 \u0932 , \u0939\u0938 \u0932 \u0915 \u0932 , \u092e\u0930\u0928\u0938\u092b
\n      \u0915 \u0932       \u0925 \u092c\u0938 \u0938\u091f\u0923S \u092a\u0930 \u092d\u0930       \u0930\u0939    \u0925 , \u0930 \u0938\u0938
\n      \u0935\u0939 \u0915#=\u0921 \u0935 \u0917\u0928\u0926\u0917 \u0930\u0939         \u0925 \u0914\u0930 \u0907\u0938 \u0928 \u0932 \u0915
\n      \u092c\u0928\u0928 \u0938 \u0905\u092c \u0935\u0939 \u0915\u0939 \u092d \u092a \u0928 \u0907\u0915\u091fT \u0928\u0939 \u0939                  \u0939
\n      \u0914\u0930 \u0926\u0915\u0938 \u092d       \u0917\u0939 \u092a \u0928 \u0907\u0915\u091fT \u0928\u0939 \u0939           \u0939 \u0914\u0930
\n      \u092a \u0928 \u0928 \u0932 \u092e \u0939 \u0915\u0930          \u0939 \u0964 \u0907\u0928 \u0925 6 \u0938 \u0939
\n      \u0938\u092a9 \u0939        \u0939 \u0926\u0915 \u0928\u0917\u0930\u092a \u0924\u0932\u0915 \u0926 \u0930 \u0930 \u0938 \u0928 \u0932 \u0915
\n      \u0924\u0928\u092e     \u0926\u0915    \u0917     \u0939, \u0935\u0939 \u0924\u0928\u092e       \u0926\u0915        \u0928
\n      \u0906\u0935\u0936 \u0915 \u0925 \u0964 \u0938 \u0935 \u0924\u0928\u0915 \u0917\u0928\u0926\u0917 \u0915 \u0939\u091f \u0928 \u0915 \u0924\u0932
\n      \u0928 \u0932 \u0915 \u0924\u0928\u092e         \u0906\u0935\u0936 \u0915 \u0925 \u0964        \u092a\u0939\u0932 \u0915\u0924\u0928\u0937
\n      \u0905\u0924\u092d \u0928 \u0915 \u0911\u0926\u092b\u0938 \u0938 \u0906\u0917 \u0915 \u0908 \u0928 \u0932 \u092c\u0928 \u0939\u0908 \u0928\u0939
\n      \u0925 , \u0930 \u0938\u0938 \u092a \u0928 \u0916\u0932 \u092e \u092c\u0939        \u0925 , \u0938\u092d \u0938 \u0935 \u0924\u0928\u0915
\n      \u0938\u0925 \u09286 \u092a\u0930 \u092a \u0928 \u092d\u0930 \u0930\u0939 \u0925 , \u0905\u092c \u0907\u0938 \u0928 \u0932 \u0915 \u092c\u0928\u0928
\n      \u0938 \u0915\u0939 \u092a\u0930 \u092d \u092a \u0928 \u092d\u0930 \u0928\u0939 \u0930\u0939 \u0939 \u0914\u0930 \u0938 \u0930 \u092a \u0928
\n      \u0928 \u0932 \u092e \u0939 \u0915\u0930 \u092c\u0939 \u0915\u0930 \u0924\u0928\u0915\u0932        \u0939, \u0939 \u0925 \u0938\u0935
\n      \u0935 \u0926 \u0915 \u0938 \u0930\u0915 6 \u0928 \u0938\u0935 \u0915 \u0930 \u0926\u0915 \u0939 \u0914\u0930 \u092a\u0924 \u0935 \u0926 \u0915
\n      \u092d    \u0939 \u0915\u0939\u0928 \u0939 \u0964 \u0907\u0938 \u0930\u0938\u0925\u0924 \u092e \u0928\u0917\u0930\u092a \u0924\u0932\u0915 \u0926 \u0930
\n          \u0928 \u0932 \u0915 \u0924\u0928\u092e      \u0926\u0915   \u0917   \u0939, \u0935\u0939 \u0924\u0928\u092e       \u0915
\n      \u0938\u0939 \u092a       \u0939    \u0939 \u0914\u0930 \u0928     \u0932 \u0915 \u0910\u0938 \u0915            \u092e
\n        \u092c \u0915 \u0926\u0915\u0938 \u0935 \u0924? \u0915 \u0924\u0935\u0936\u0937 \u0930\u092a \u0938 \u0915\u0924 \u0928\u0939
\n      \u0939    \u0939, \u092c \u0915 \u0926\u0916\u0932 \u0928\u0939 \u0915\u0930\u0928 = \u0926\u0939 , \u0939 \u0924\u0935\u0924
\n      \u0915 \u0938\u0935\u0938\u092e\u092e \u0924\u0938\u0926 \u0928 \u0939 \u0964 \u0907\u0938 \u0930\u0938\u0925\u0924 \u092e \u0939 \u0915\u0939\u0928
\n      \u0926\u0915 \u0928\u0917\u0930\u092a \u0924\u0932\u0915 \u0915 \u0935 \u0926 \u0915# \u092e \u0928 \u0915# \u0913\u0930 \u0928 \u0932
\n      \u092c\u0928 \u0928 \u0915 \u0905\u0924 \u0915 \u0930 \u0928\u0939 \u0939 \u0914\u0930 \u0928 \u0939 \u0909 \u0930 \u0938 \u0928 \u0932 \u092e
\n      \u092a \u0928 \u092c\u0939 \u0928 \u0915 \u0905\u0924 \u0915 \u0930 \u0939, \u0924\u092c\u0932\u0915\u0932 \u0917\u0932              \u0939 \u0964\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      \u0928\u0917\u0930\u092a \u0924\u0932\u0915 \u0915 \u0915Y \u0924 \u0932 \u0915 \u0926\u0939 \u092e \u0926\u0915           \u0917    \u0915Y \u0924\n      \u0939 \u0914\u0930 \u0910\u0938 \u0915Y \u0924 \u092e \u0928        \u0932   \u0915 \u0926\u0916\u0932 \u0928\u0939 \u0926\u0928\n      = \u0926\u0939 \u0910\u0938 \u0930\u0938\u0925\u0924 \u092e \u0928\u0915# \u0938\u0916            1 \u0935 2 \u0935\u0926 \u0915\n      \u0924\u0935\u0930\u0926 \u0935 \u092a\u0924 \u0935 \u0926 \u0917 \u0915 \u0939\u0915 \u092e \u0924\u0935\u0924\u0928\u0930[ \u0915#\n      \u0939 \u0964\"\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
      The learned Appellate Court has observed in issue No.3<\/p>\n
that the plaintiff has not suffered any substantial injury and his<\/p>\n
personal inconvenience cannot be over and above the public<\/p>\n
interest. As a result of the findings on issues Nos.1,2 and 3,<\/p>\n
the learned Appellate Court has allowed the appeal preferred<\/p>\n
by the defendant Municipal Board, Amet and has dismissed
\n                                  10<\/span><\/p>\n
the appeal preferred by the plaintiff Roshan Lal; and has<\/p>\n
dismissed the suit altogether.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      Seeking to assail the judgment and decree passed by<\/p>\n
the learned Appellate Court, learned counsel Mr. Pradeep<\/p>\n
Shah has strenuously contended that the impugned judgment<\/p>\n
and decree suffer from basic illegality where the sound legal<\/p>\n
reasonings of the learned Trial Court have not at all been<\/p>\n
considered by the learned Appellate Court; that the considered<\/p>\n
judgment and decree of the learned Trial Court have been set<\/p>\n
aside by the Appellate Court in a cursory manner without<\/p>\n
considering the evidence on record and the law applicable to<\/p>\n
the case; and that the Appellate Court has failed to consider<\/p>\n
that the plaintiff-appellant has established by cogent evidence<\/p>\n
that he is suffering nuisance because of new drainage system<\/p>\n
that has caused him substantial injury.\n<\/p>\n
      Having given a thoughtful consideration to the matter<\/p>\n
and having examined the impugned judgment and decree as<\/p>\n
passed by the learned Subordinate Courts, this Court is clearly<\/p>\n
of opinion that this second appeal does not involve any<\/p>\n
substantial question of law and does not merit admission.<\/p>\n
      On its face, of course, the judgment constructed by the<\/p>\n
Appellate Court appears to be laconic and gives an impression<\/p>\n
as if the learned Appellate Court has not dealt with the<\/p>\n
reasonings of the learned Trial Court but any question in that
\n                                11<\/span><\/p>\n
regard would not be a substantial question of law in the<\/p>\n
present case because, to say the least, there had not been<\/p>\n
any legal reasoning in the Trial Court’s judgment. All that is<\/p>\n
made out from the lengthy discussion of the Trial Court is that<\/p>\n
it has proceeded on entirely irrelevant considerations and in<\/p>\n
disregard to the relevant principles applicable to the case, has<\/p>\n
recorded such findings that are beyond and away from the real<\/p>\n
questions in controversy, and has failed to consider that in any<\/p>\n
case a decree for injunction cannot be result of its findings.<\/p>\n
The decree for injunction as issued by the learned Trial Court<\/p>\n
could not have maintained even if all its finding were kept<\/p>\n
intact. In this view of the matter, mere shortage of words or<\/p>\n
want of detailed discussion in the Appellate Court’s judgment<\/p>\n
does not lead to any substantial question of law. On the<\/p>\n
substance and merits of the case, the conclusion reached by<\/p>\n
the learned Appellate Court is in accord with the relevant<\/p>\n
principles applicable to the case.\n<\/p>\n
      In relation to the findings on issues Nos. 1 and 2, the<\/p>\n
discussion of the learned Trial Court has gone too far beyond<\/p>\n
and away from the real questions. The learned Trial Court has<\/p>\n
referred to the case of the plaintiff that earlier the discharge<\/p>\n
had been from and through a different place and for proper<\/p>\n
management of such discharge, construction of a culvert was<\/p>\n
under contemplation; and has proceeded to pose questions on
\n                                 12<\/span><\/p>\n
the correctness and justification of the decision of authorities<\/p>\n
concerned in not constructing the culvert that was proposed<\/p>\n
once; and has also cursorily referred to the fact of stay order<\/p>\n
passed by the Additional Collector operating; and thereafter,<\/p>\n
on the basic question if the defendants had no authority to<\/p>\n
construct a drain at the place in question, the learned Trial<\/p>\n
Court has stated the opinion that the defendants do not<\/p>\n
appear to have exercised the powers properly!        The learned<\/p>\n
Trial Court has concluded that construction of the drain at the<\/p>\n
place in question is wanting in justification and in sufficiency of<\/p>\n
cause. Such findings fall too short of real questions as posed<\/p>\n
in issues Nos.1 and 2 i.e., whether construction of the drain in<\/p>\n
question was unauthorized. The learned Trial Court has,<\/p>\n
instead, entered into the decision making process of the<\/p>\n
defendants and reached the finding that it was not the proper<\/p>\n
exercise of powers.\n<\/p>\n
      The learned Trial Court though has noticed the<\/p>\n
provisions of Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 including<\/p>\n
Section 175 but has failed to appreciate that it is lawful for the<\/p>\n
Board for the purpose of carrying out a drainage system to<\/p>\n
carry any drain, sewer, conduit etc. through across or under<\/p>\n
any street; and the Board has the power and authority to<\/p>\n
construct a new drain in place of existing drain and to alter any<\/p>\n
drain. In what manner and how a drainage system should be
\n                                13<\/span><\/p>\n
laid or any particular drain should be altered are all the<\/p>\n
matters essentially within the domain of the Board concerned<\/p>\n
and it was not the subject-matter of suit before the learned<\/p>\n
Trial Court that sufficiency of reasons for construction of the<\/p>\n
drain at a particular place be also examined.\n<\/p>\n
      In the present case, the fact that earlier obtainable<\/p>\n
position regarding flow of discharged water had been causing<\/p>\n
clogging problems is not in dispute and is rather admitted by<\/p>\n
the plaintiff’s own witnesses. The matter required the attention<\/p>\n
of the Municipal Board and a proper drainage system was<\/p>\n
required to be provided. It is also clear, again as admitted by<\/p>\n
the plaintiff’s own witnesses, that with construction of the<\/p>\n
disputed drain, the clogging and other related problems have<\/p>\n
been solved and the discharged water flows smoothly in and<\/p>\n
from the drain in question. In the face of the evidence<\/p>\n
available on record, as discussed by the learned Appellate<\/p>\n
Court that admittedly the disputed drain has served the public<\/p>\n
cause, this Court is unable to find any justification wherefor<\/p>\n
any injunction would be issued against the Board in this<\/p>\n
matter.\n<\/p>\n
      The approach of the learned Trial Court is demonstrably<\/p>\n
erroneous; and rather, the judgment of the learned Trial Court<\/p>\n
suffers from self-contradictions. Though the plaintiff stated the<\/p>\n
grievance against the drain in question while imputing motives
\n                                 14<\/span><\/p>\n
on the defendant No.2, the Executive Officer of the Municipal<\/p>\n
Board, the learned Trial Court, however, specifically rejected<\/p>\n
such an allegation on the intentions of the defendant No.2.<\/p>\n
Then, the plaintiff suggested himself having suffered loss and<\/p>\n
the drain causing him nuisance. The learned Trial Court has<\/p>\n
not returned any categoric finding on the aspect of nuisance<\/p>\n
but, as noticed, has rejected the case for damages with the<\/p>\n
finding that the plaintiff has not been able to show substantial<\/p>\n
loss. (vide the findings of Trial Court on issue No.3 as<\/p>\n
reproduced above). With such findings, the suit of the plaintiff<\/p>\n
was bound to fail and ought to have been dismissed.<\/p>\n
      Though on the aspect of nuisance the Trial Court has<\/p>\n
not recorded categoric finding in favour of the plaintiff but, if it<\/p>\n
be inferred that the learned Trial Court assumed that the drain<\/p>\n
in question causes some nuisance, it has yet not considered<\/p>\n
the relevant principles applicable to the case. Per clause (f) of<\/p>\n
Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, an injunction<\/p>\n
cannot be granted to prevent, on the ground of nuisance, an<\/p>\n
act of which it is not reasonably clear that it will be a nuisance.<\/p>\n
It has nowhere been the finding of the learned Trial Court that<\/p>\n
the plaintiff was able to make out a reasonably clear case that<\/p>\n
the act in question is of nuisance. The Board, when acting as<\/p>\n
a public body and working under the statute and in public<\/p>\n
interest, the presumption would be that its acts and actions are
\n                                15<\/span><\/p>\n
in accord with the statutory provisions and a Court would not<\/p>\n
interfere with such exercise of powers unless the Board is<\/p>\n
shown to have acted in an arbitrary or oppressive manner or<\/p>\n
when the action could be said to be actuated by improper<\/p>\n
motive. No such case being made out against the defendants,<\/p>\n
no injunction could have been issued on the ground of<\/p>\n
nuisance that the plaintiff attempted to suggest.<\/p>\n
      The learned Appellate Court has been justified in<\/p>\n
pointing out that unless a case of substantial loss is made out,<\/p>\n
there is no justification for the Court to interfere in the work<\/p>\n
carried out by the Board in public interest.\n<\/p>\n
      In the case of Muhammad Mohidin Sait Vs. The<\/p>\n
Municipal Commissioners for the city of Madras: (1901) 25<\/p>\n
Madras 118 the plaintiff sued for an injunction for restraining<\/p>\n
the Municipal Commissioners of Madras from using a plot of<\/p>\n
land acquired by them as a burial and burning ground on the<\/p>\n
allegation that his premises had become unhealthy and unfit<\/p>\n
for residential purpose, and it caused loss to the value of his<\/p>\n
property. It was noticed by the Court that though there was<\/p>\n
some evidence that the burning and burial ground was to<\/p>\n
some extent a source of nuisance to any one who occupied<\/p>\n
the plaintiff’s premises and that market value of the premises<\/p>\n
had depreciated but the Court held that use of a place<\/p>\n
dedicated for communal purposes of cremation in a way which
\n                                16<\/span><\/p>\n
was neither negligent or unreasonable and which was not<\/p>\n
calculated to aggravate the inconvenience necessarily incident<\/p>\n
to such an act, does not amount to an actionable nuisance. In<\/p>\n
the lead judgment, Sir Arnold White, Hon’ble the Chief Justice,<\/p>\n
quoted the following dictum with approval,-\n<\/p>\n
      ” It cannot be laid down as a legal proposition or
\n      doctrine, that anything, which under any
\n      circumstances, lessens the comfort or endangers
\n      the health or safety of a neighbour, must
\n      necessarily be an actionable nuisance.”<\/p>\n
      And, Hon’ble Justice Moore in his concurring opinion<\/p>\n
further pointed out,-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      “The plaintiff in order to be entitled to either an
\n      injunction or damages must show that the injury
\n      suffered by him is not merely nominal but real and
\n      substantial.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
      In the present case, the approach of the learned Trial<\/p>\n
Court in first of all examining the question if the defendants<\/p>\n
have been able to show justification for construction of the<\/p>\n
drain at the particular place itself suffers from the fundamental<\/p>\n
error of angle of approach. Then, the learned Trial Court has<\/p>\n
obviously omitted to consider the principles governing grant of<\/p>\n
injunction on the ground of nuisance; and has omitted to<\/p>\n
consider that the plaintiff failed to make out a case of<\/p>\n
actionable nuisance and that the allegations of the plaintiff<\/p>\n
were at best of a complaint of such nuisance that is incidental
\n                                17<\/span><\/p>\n
to a drain and when pitted against the other requirements of<\/p>\n
public convenience, prayer for injunction as made in this case<\/p>\n
could only have been rejected being related to inactionable<\/p>\n
nuisance.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      This Court is unable to appreciate that a decree for<\/p>\n
mandatory and perpetual injunction was passed            by the<\/p>\n
learned Trial Court against a local body in relation to a work<\/p>\n
carried out under its statutory powers and in discharge of its<\/p>\n
duties despite there be no finding on any of the relevant<\/p>\n
aspects wherefor such injunction could have been issued. The<\/p>\n
decree as passed by the Trial Court cannot sustain itself; and<\/p>\n
being squarely contrary to the legal principles applicable to the<\/p>\n
case, was required to be reversed. The learned Appellate<\/p>\n
Court has been justified in doing so. There is no ground for<\/p>\n
interference.\n<\/p>\n
      This second appeal fails and is, therefore, dismissed<\/p>\n
summarily.\n<\/p>\n
                                    (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J.\n<\/p>\n
MK\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur Roshan Lal vs M.B.Amet on 1 July, 2008 1 S.B. CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO. 102\/2008. Roshan Lal Vs. Municipal Board, Amet Date of Order :: 1st July 2008. HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. Pradeep Shah, for the appellant …. BY THE COURT: This second appeal has been preferred by […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,19],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-108031","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-rajasthan-high-court-jodhpur"],"yoast_head":"\nRoshan Lal vs M.B.Amet on 1 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/roshan-lal-vs-m-b-amet-on-1-july-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Roshan Lal vs M.B.Amet on 1 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/roshan-lal-vs-m-b-amet-on-1-july-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-06-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-06-01T19:22:22+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/roshan-lal-vs-m-b-amet-on-1-july-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/roshan-lal-vs-m-b-amet-on-1-july-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Roshan Lal vs M.B.Amet on 1 July, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-06-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-01T19:22:22+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/roshan-lal-vs-m-b-amet-on-1-july-2008\"},\"wordCount\":3227,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/roshan-lal-vs-m-b-amet-on-1-july-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/roshan-lal-vs-m-b-amet-on-1-july-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/roshan-lal-vs-m-b-amet-on-1-july-2008\",\"name\":\"Roshan Lal vs M.B.Amet on 1 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-06-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-01T19:22:22+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/roshan-lal-vs-m-b-amet-on-1-july-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/roshan-lal-vs-m-b-amet-on-1-july-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/roshan-lal-vs-m-b-amet-on-1-july-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Roshan Lal vs M.B.Amet on 1 July, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Roshan Lal vs M.B.Amet on 1 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/roshan-lal-vs-m-b-amet-on-1-july-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Roshan Lal vs M.B.Amet on 1 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/roshan-lal-vs-m-b-amet-on-1-july-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-06-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-06-01T19:22:22+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/roshan-lal-vs-m-b-amet-on-1-july-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/roshan-lal-vs-m-b-amet-on-1-july-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Roshan Lal vs M.B.Amet on 1 July, 2008","datePublished":"2008-06-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-01T19:22:22+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/roshan-lal-vs-m-b-amet-on-1-july-2008"},"wordCount":3227,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/roshan-lal-vs-m-b-amet-on-1-july-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/roshan-lal-vs-m-b-amet-on-1-july-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/roshan-lal-vs-m-b-amet-on-1-july-2008","name":"Roshan Lal vs M.B.Amet on 1 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-06-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-01T19:22:22+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/roshan-lal-vs-m-b-amet-on-1-july-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/roshan-lal-vs-m-b-amet-on-1-july-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/roshan-lal-vs-m-b-amet-on-1-july-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Roshan Lal vs M.B.Amet on 1 July, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/108031","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=108031"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/108031\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=108031"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=108031"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=108031"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}