Trespassers who take possession of land without lawful authority are liable to ejectment under Section 183 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955.

1. - The case of the petitioner in short is that non-petitioner No. 4 filed a suit for possession of land in question before the Assistant Collector Kota in which the petitioners were impleaded as defendants on the grounds inter-alia that in revenue village Raipura one garden namely; Fateh Bagh is situated in which the disputed lard measuring 24 Bighas and 16 Biswas is situated. It was averred in the suit that garden having fruit trees is in the name of one Pujari Ranchod Lal in the revenue record who left Kota on 12-6-1953 and since then the property is in possession of the Receivers appointed under the orders of District Judge, Kota. It was further averred in the suit that the garden where the temple is located was in possession of Pujari Ranchod Lal who during the life time of his father was cultivating the disputed land and also looking after the temple situated at garden (disputed). On 24-3-1948 the garden was given on contract for five years on behalf of the temple in pursuance of which the defendants (petitioners) deposited the leased amount as stipulated in the contract for user of the land in question and after expiry of five years, the term was extended by the State Govt. for one year and ever since then the defendants (petitioners) were in unauthorised occupation of the said garden as alleged in the suit. It was further averred averred in the suit that defendants were also not making the payment of contract amount. The plaintiff had further averred in the suit that defendants had without any express authority of the plaintiff cut the fruits and allowed defendant Nos. 2 to 5 (petitioner Nos. 2 to 5) to cultivate the land after damaging the land for which they were not authorised to do so. Thus, the plaintiff prayed for having his right to restore the possession of the property in dispute with costs from the defendants (petitioners).

2. In Written statement filed on behalf of the defendants, the aforesaid averment of the plaintiff were denied by the defendants on the grounds inter-alia that in Fateh Bagh there were 7-8 trees of fruits i.e. Imli, 4-5 trees of Ren, 2 trees of Jamun, 1 tree of Kadam and some trees of dates. The Defendants in support of their case took plea that the said property was the personal property and in the Khatedari of Pujari Ranchod Lal land plaintiff consequently respondent No. 4 Bade Mathureshji Virajman Radhavilas had no legal right over the said property and from Samvat 2000 Pujarai Ranchod Lal gave this land for tenanted cultivation to the defendants (petitioners) and in the Patta also the names of the petitioners were recorded therein. It was further averred that land of the Fateh Bagh was not a grove land and was lying idle and they got it ready for cultivation. It was also mentioned that they were in cultivatory possession over the disputed land since 1955 and as such, they acquired Khatedari rights over the same.

3. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, Assistant Collector Kota framed 8 issues on which the parties led their respective evidence in support. The Assistant Collector Kota after recording the evidence led by both the parties, decreed the plaintiff's suit vide his judgment and order dated 22-12-1981. Against the order of the Assistant Collector Kota dated 22-12-1981, the defendants-petitioners filed appeal under Section 223 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 for short the "Act of 1955" before the Revenue Appellate Authority Kota who after hearing both the parties and taking into consideration the circumstances of the case as well as the legal position on the subject dismissed the appeal of the petitioners vide his order dated 13-10-1987 against which the petitioners preferred second appeal under Section 224 of the Act of 1955 before the Board of Revenue, Ajmer. The learned Members of the Board of Revenue vide its judgment and order dated 13-4-1997 dismissed their second appeal preferred by the petitioners against which they have come up before this Court by wa