As per case facts, the appellant encroached upon government land in 1973, built a house, and, after initial eviction orders, had 200 square meters regularised in 1988, but not the ... remaining 1000 square meters. Later proceedings for illegal occupation led to an eviction order. The appellant filed a civil suit for declaration and injunction, which the Trial Court and First Appellate Court rejected summarily under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, citing jurisdictional bar and land vesting in the government. This led to the second appeal. The question arose whether a plaint could be summarily rejected when regulations might allow for regularisation of encroached land, if a declaration prayer was maintainable, and if a circular limiting regularisation had legal force. Finally, the High Court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that civil court jurisdiction is barred by Section 204 of the regulation for such matters. It concluded that the regulation and government circular prohibit regularisation beyond 200 square meters for urban dwelling units, and revenue authorities possess the special power to address such disputes, thus finding no merit in the appeal.