2013 Supreme(Raj) 2219
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
Mohammad Rafiq, J.
Chhotu Singh (deceased) represented by Mahavir Singh and others, and Mishrilal - Appellant
Versus
The Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer and others - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8016 of 1992.
Decided On : 4-12-2013
Advocates:
For the Petitioner: Gayatri Rathore, counsel.
For the Respondents: Kapil Bardhar, counsel.
Actual tillers of land on the date of commencement of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, were conferred with khatedari rights under Section 15 of the Act.
Headnote:
REVENUE - Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 - Section 15 - Suit for declaration and injunction - Possession of land - Actual tiller on the date of commencement of the Act - Conferment of khatedari rights - Sale-deed executed by Mishrilal in favour of Chhotu Singh - Possession of Bheru on the date of filing of the suit - Forcible dispossession by Chhotu Singh - Suit filed by Bheru for declaration and injunction - Dismissal of the suit by the learned Assistant Collector - Appeal allowed by the Revenue Appellate Authority - Reversal of the judgment by the Board of Revenue - Writ petition filed by Chhotu Singh - Dismissal of the writ petition.
Fact of the Case:
Chhotu Singh, an ex-army man, filed a writ petition challenging the order of the Board of Revenue and the Assistant Collector, Sambhar Lake, which dismissed his suit for declaration and injunction and decreed the suit filed by Bheru for declaration and injunction against him. Chhotu Singh claimed to have acquired interest in the disputed land on the strength of a sale-deed executed in his favour by Mishrilal, while Bheru claimed to be in possession of the land as a tenant from Samvat 2009 onwards.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that Bheru was in actual possession of the land on the date of filing of the suit and that Chhotu Singh forcibly dispossessed him from the land. The court also found that Bheru was the actual tiller of the land on the date of commencement of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, and was therefore conferred with khatedari rights under Section 15 of the Act.
Issues: 1. Whether Bheru was in possession of the land on the date of filing of the suit? 2. Whether Chhotu Singh forcibly dispossessed Bheru from the land? 3. Whether Bheru was the actual tiller of the land on the date of commencement of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955? 4. Whether Bheru was conferred with khatedari rights under Section 15 of the Act?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that: 1. Bheru was in possession of the land on the date of filing of the suit, as evidenced by the testimony of witnesses and the fact that he had filed a criminal case against Chhotu Singh for criminal trespass of his land. 2. Chhotu Singh forcibly dispossessed Bheru from the land, as evidenced by the fact that he had to file a criminal case against Chhotu Singh for criminal trespass of his land. 3. Bheru was the actual tiller of the land on the date of commencement of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, as evidenced by the testimony of witnesses and the fact that he had been cultivating the land for several decades. 4. Bheru was conferred with khatedari rights under Section 15 of the Act, as he was the actual tiller of the land on the date of commencement of the Act.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition filed by Chhotu Singh.
JUDGMENT
1. - This writ petition has been filed by petitioners, namely, (1) Chhotu Singh, now deceased, who is represented by Mahavir Singh, and (2) Mishrilal, assailing the order of the Board of Revenue dated 02.06.1992 and that of the Assistant Collector, Sambhar Lake, dated 26.09.1979. It is prayed that these orders may be quashed and set aside and the order dated 08.01.1986 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority may be restored.
2. Petitioner no.1 Chhotu Singh was younger brother of Jagirdar of Thikana Padasoli, Tehsil Dudu, District Jaipur. The dispute is about the land of Khasra No.1765 measuring 14 bighas and 11 biswas. According to the petitioners, this land was in the khatedari of petitioner no.1 at the relevant time. When he was serving in the Indian Army, certain villagers encroached upon his land. After retirement, when he returned to his native village in 1960, he found that most of the land was in possession of other persons. Even entries in the revenue record were made in the name of such persons. According to the petitioners, petitioner no.1 took cultivatory possession of his land in 1960. Earlier his father used to cultivate this land but because of his sad demise in 1957, there was no one to look after the land, therefore, certain persons of the village, taking advantage of the situation, encroached upon the land. The land in dispute was entered in the name of petitioner no.2 Mishrilal, to whom the settlement department had wrongly issued a 'Parcha' in absence of petitioner no.1. Petitioner no.1 therefore got a registered sale-deed executed from petitioner no.2 in his favour before the Sub Registrar on 12.02.1960. The land was mutated in favour of the petitioner no.1 on 14.02.1960. In Girdawari of 29.11.1961, the petitioner no.1 was recorded as khud-kast khatedar.
3. Respondent no.2 Bheru filed a revenue suit on 29.08.1960 against the petitioner for declaration and injunction against the petitioner that he should not interfere with his possession. According to the petitioner, the respondent no.2 was never in possession of the land in question nor was he ever entered as khatedar in the revenue record. The petitioner also initiated proceedings on 13.10.1961 under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The disputed land was attached. When however the attachment proceedings were withdrawn on 13.06.1962, possession of the land was ordered to be handed over to the petitioner. Respondent no.3 Bhura filed a revision petition against the said order before the Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur, which was dismissed on 10.03.1966. But the respondent no.2 illegally got the mutation attested of the disputed land in his favour on 28.02.1963. The petitioner filed appeal against the said mutation before the Additional Collector, Jaipur, who by order dated 03.11.1965 accepted the appeal setting aside the said mutation. Name of petitioner no.2 Mishrilal was entered as khatedar in Samvat 2009 and Samvat 2013 to 2019, but the respondent no.2 got the name of Mishrilal struck off as khatedar of the land in question in the entry of 'chausala' of Samvat 2009. Thereafter the respondent no.2 illegally got the land mutated in his name on 28.02.1962. The petitioner filed the appeal against the said mutation entry, which was accepted by the Additional Collector, Jaipur, vide order dated 03.11.1965 and the said mutation entry was set aside. From Samvat 2013 name of petitioner no.2 Mishrilal continued in the revenue record and thereafter from Samvat 2028 to 2033 he was recorded as up-krishak (sub tiller). That possession continued with the petitioners till respondent no.2 filed suit in Samvat 2017.
4. Both the suits filed by the petitioner as well as the respondent no.2 were decided by learned Additional Collector vide order dated 26.09.1979. While the suit filed by the petitioner was dismissed, and the suit of the respondent no.2 Bheru was decreed, who was declared as recorded khatedar. The appeal filed by the petitioner was
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
