SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2014 Supreme(Raj) 1474

M.N.BHANDARI
Rampal – Appellant
Versus
Board of Revenue – Respondent


Advocates:
For the Petitioner:Anurag Shukla, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Ashish Kumar, Advocate.

JUDGMENT

1. - By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the order of Additional Collector, Revenue Appellate Authority and Board of Revenue. All the three orders are against the petitioners and having concurrent finding of facts. It was on a suit preferred by the respondents to seek declaration under Section 19 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (in short "Act, 1955").

2. Learned counsel submits that the petitioners were khatedar of the land and their names exist in the revenue record. The respondents filed a suit claiming themselves to be khatedar and possession of the land in dispute. It was nowhere mentioned that they are shikmi tenant in the land thus entitled to the benefit under the Act, 1955. The courts below failed to consider that in absence of claim to cover it under Section 19 of the Act, 1955, the declaration could not have been made. The plea taken by the petitioners was even in contradiction inasmuch as they were claiming rights as shikmi tenant and at the same time, claim was made based on permissive possession. A claim for adverse possession is in contrast to the declaration sought under Section 19 by considering themselves to be shikmi tenant. The aforesaid was also














Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top