HOOJA, C.—The questions of referred by the learned Division Bench of this Court of consideration of the Full Bench, are as under:-

(1) Whether the Larger Bench in its judgment `Bagga vs. Surendra Singh' as reported in 1991 RRD page 1 has laid down a good law by providing for conferment/acquisition of khatedari rights on a trespasser on the basis of `adverse possession' vis-a-vis the provision of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act of 1955 as a measure of land reform?

(2) Whether extinguishment of tenancy right under Section 63(1)(iv) of the Act of 1955 creates khatedari right in trespasser on the basis of adverse possession; or such land after extinction of tenancy right reverts of landholder- the State Government?

(3) Whether the Board of Revenue has legislative power to lay down a new law for grant of khatedari right in addition to and over and above what is provided under the Act, as has been done by the Larger Bench of this Court in 1991 RRD page 1?

(4) Whether the judgment of the Larger Bench as reported in 1991 RRD page 1 should be revoked/annulled in light of the provision of the Act of 1955 and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as reported in RLW 2008(1) RJ page 1101.

2. The thumbnail sketch of the case, in which the matter has been placed before us for examining the above questions, can be briefly mentioned as follows:-

History of litigation

Initially respondent/plaintiff Shri Sitaram filed a regular suit in the year 1975 for the land bearing khasra No. 349 measuring 1 bigha 1 biswa in Village Shriramjipura, Tehsil Sanganer District Jaipur under Section 88 & 188 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter called "the Act") against Shri Ghasi, Phoolya and Kalya in the Court of Sub-Divisional Officer, Jaipur (II) with submissions that he is in continuous cultivatory possession of the land in question, even prior to Samvat 2008. On the day of filing the suit, the land in question was entered in the name of defendant Ghasi and Kalya. The plaintiff brought this suit basically on the premise of adverse possession. During the pendency of the suit Shri Ghasi and Shri Phoolya (the defendants) died and their legal representatives were brought on record. After having received the reply of the plaint the Trial Court framed the following issues in the suit:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is in possession of land bearing khasra No. 349 area 1 bigha 1 biswa of village Shriamjipura (Tehsil Sanganer) since Samvat 2008?

2. Whether the land bearing khasra No. 349 measuring 1 bigha 1 biswa has been mistakenly entered in the name of Shri Ghasi by the Settlement Department. And after the death of Shri Ghasi, the land in question has been entered wrongly in the khatedari of Shri Phoolya?

3. Whether the plaintiff has acquired khatedar rights in agricultural land bearing khasra No. 349 and the plaintiff has a right to get his khatedari declared on this land?

4. Whether the plaintiff has not mentioned that how his suit is within the limitation and on this very basis the plaint may be amended?

5. Whether the suit is within limitation?

6. Whether defendant No. 1 has sold the land in question to Shri Rameshwar through registered sale deed and the mutation has also been sanctioned to this effect. Therefore, whether Shri Rameshwar is the khatedar tenant in possession of the land in dispute?

7. Whether Shri Rameshwar is a necessary party in the suit?

8. Whether the State is a necessary party in the suit?

9. Whether the transfer of this disputed land in favour of Shri Rameshwar during the pendency of the suit has no legal effect?

10. Relief.

3. On the basis of the material available on the record, the Trial Court decreed the suit on 5.2.1997 filed by the plaintiff Sitaram on the basis of adverse possession and declared plaintiff Shri Sitaram as khatedar tenant of khasra No. 349 measuring 1 bigha 1 biswa of village Shriamjipura and also restrained the defendants by permanent injunction not to interfere with the peaceful possession of Shri Sitaram on the disputed land

Click Here to Read the rest of this document