2014 Supreme(Raj) 1198
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Sangeet Lodha, J.
Ilamdeen - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan and others - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6466 of 2009.
Decided On : 28-03-2014
Advocates:
For the Petitioner:L.D. Khatri, Advocate.
Mere possession over the land is not sufficient to claim khatedari rights under Section 15 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955.
Headnote:
RAJASTHAN TENANCY ACT, 1955 - SECTION 15 - KHATEDARI RIGHTS - ACQUISITION BY POSSESSION - ORAL EVIDENCE - INSUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH CONTINUOUS POSSESSION PRIOR TO ACT'S COMMENCEMENT - NO KHATEDARI RIGHTS ACCRUE TO TRESPASSER.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner filed a suit under Section 88 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (Act of 1955) for declaration of his khatedari right over the land measuring 75 bighas. The petitioner claimed to be in possession of the land prior to settlement and averred that his name was not entered in the revenue record due to an error by settlement authorities. The suit was contested by the respondent-defendant.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no documentary evidence produced on record showing that the petitioner was in continuous possession of the land prior to the coming into force of the Act of 1955. The court also found that mere possession over the land is not sufficient to claim khatedari rights under Section 15 of the Act of 1955.
Issues: Whether the petitioner had acquired khatedari rights over the land in question by operation of law based on his alleged long possession.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the concurrent findings arrived at by the courts below after due appreciation of evidence on record, cannot be said to be capricious or perverse so as to warrant interference by this court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed in limine.
JUDGMENT
1. - This writ petition is directed against judgment dated 14.1.09 of the Board of Revenue, whereby a second appeal preferred by the petitioner u/s 224 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (in short "the Act of 1955")against the judgment and decree dated 15.6.04 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority(RAA), affirming the judgment and decree dated 24.1.04 passed by the Assistant Collector, Pokaran in Revenue Suit No.6/01, stands dismissed.
2. The petitioner filed a suit under Section 88 of the Act of 1955 before the Assistant Collector, Pokaran, for declaration of his khatedari right over the land ad measuring 75 bighas, comprising khasra no.793, situated at village-Lava. The petitioner claimed to be in possession of the land prior to settlement and averred that his name was not entered in the revenue record on account of error on the part of settlement authorities. The suit was contested by the respondent-defendant by filing a written statement thereto. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed the issues in the following terms:
"(1) vk;k eqnbZ ekStk yok ds [ksr [k0 u0 7 jdck 75 ch?kk Hkwfe ij iq'rSuh dkfct gsrq oDr Hkwfe iSekbZ'k rFkk txhj tCrh ds Hkh og gh dkfct Fkk rcls fujUrj dk'r dj jgk gSA ftlls og [kkrsnkjh vf/kdkj ikus dk vf/kdkjh gSA
(2) vU; nknjlhA"
3. After due consideration of the evidence on record, the suit preferred by the petitioner was decreed by the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 17.11.80. The District Collector, Jaisalmar made a reference under Section 232 of the Act to the Board of Revenue for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 17.11.80 passed in favour of the petitioner. The reference made was accepted and the judgment and decree passed in favour of the petitioner was set aside by the Board of Revenue vide order dated 3.12.86. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred a writ petition being No.219/87 before this court, which stood allowed by this court vide judgment dated 31.7.90 and the matter was remanded back to the Assistant Collector for decision afresh in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity to the petitioner as well as the State to lead proper evidence i.e. oral and documentary.
4. The suit preferred by the petitioner was decreed by the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 8.1.91. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent no.2-Tahsildar, Pokaran preferred review petition before the Assistant Collector, Pokaran. The review petition was allowed and judgment and decree dated 8.1.91 was set aside vide order dated 29.6.91. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the RAA, Jodhpur. The appeal was allowed vide order dated 23.3.92 and the matter was remanded to the Sub Divisional Officer(SDO), Pokaran. The suit was dismissed by the SDO, Pokaran vide judgment and decree dated 14.10.99. Being dissatisfied, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the RAA, Barmer-Jaisalmer, which was allowed observing that the SDO was required to decide the matter in the capacity of Assistant Collector and not as SDO. Accordingly, the matter was remanded to the Assistant Collector for decision afresh.
5. After due consideration, the suit preferred stands dismissed by the Assistant Collector vide judgment and decree dated 24.1.04. Aggrieved thereby, an appeal preferred by the petitioner stood dismissed by the RAA vide judgment and decree dated 15.6.04. The second appeal preferred by the petitioner aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the RAA also stands dismissed by the Board of Revenue by the order impugned. Hence, this petition.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in cultivatory possession of the land even prior to coming into force of the Act of 1955. Learned counsel submitted that on the basis of the oral evidence produced on behalf of the petitioner, it is established beyond doubt that the petitioner is in continuous possession of the land even prior to the settlement and therefore, he h
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
