Hon'ble MISHR, CJ.—This intra Court appeal has been filed against the order dated 18.12.2009 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15164/2009.

2. Brief relevant facts for the disposal of this intra Court appeal are that a suit under Sections 88 and 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act for declaration of khatedari rights and permanent injunction was filed by the appellant-plaintiff on the basis of adverse possession over the land in question. The appellant-plaintiff raised ground that he is in possession of the land in question for last so many years, therefore, on the plea of adverse possession he is entitled to be conferred khatedari rights in respect of the land in question. The State Government took the plea that the disputed land was a play ground in which khatedari rights cannot be granted. The Trial Court amongst others framed an issue to be effect whether the khatedari rights accrued to the appellant-plaintiff in the disputed land on the basis of adverse possession. The learned Trial Court declined to confer khatedari rights in favour of the appellant-plaintiff on the ground that the land in question in revenue record stands as a school play ground in which khatedari rights cannot be accrued.

3. The said judgment and decree dated 13.1.2006 passed by the SDO, Amer (District Jaipur) was challenged by way of filing an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Ajmer. Vide judgment dated 20.10.2006 the learned Revenue Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant-plaintiff and thereafter, he want in second appeal before the Board of Revenue under Section 224 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act.

4. Before the Board of Revenue, the appellant-plaintiff filed an application under Order 6, Rule 17, CPC for amendment of appeal. In the amendment application filed by the appellant-plaintiff, it was stated before the Board of Revenue that fact of entry of the disputed land as play ground is incorrect in view of the fact that in the public interest litigation before this Court in D.B. Civil Writ (PIL) Petition No. 9531/2006, reply was filed by the State Government in which a plea was taken by the Government that the land in question belonged to one Ex-Jagirdar Shri Martin De Silva and erroneously entered as school play ground meaning, thereby, the fact of land in question being play ground was refuted by the State Government before this Court, therefore, it was prayed in the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17, CPC before the learned Board of Revenue that necessary amendment may be allowed in the memo of appeal. The Board of Revenue, however, dismissed the application and so also the appeal filed by the appellant-plaintiff vide order dated 6.8.2009.

5. Aggrieved with the aforesaid order, appellant-plaintiff filed the writ petition before the learned Single Bench, which was dismissed by the impugned order dated 18.12.2009.

6. The learned Single Bench has found that the appellant-plaintiff having taken the plea of adverse possession, he may be entitled for conferment of khatedari rights only on that basis, but it is no where stated by him that he is either tenant or sub-tenant of Ex-Jagirdar Shri Martin De Silva, so also, no issue with regard to this fact was framed by the Trial Court; meaning thereby, the appellant-plaintiff was not allowed to make out a new case by the Board of Revenue. It was also found by the learned Single Bench that on both counts advanced by the respondent-State that land in question was entered in the name of play ground of the school, so also, that in fact the land in question belonged to Ex-Jagirdar Shri Martin De Silva and was wrongly entered as play ground of school in the revenue record, the appellant-plaintiff cannot claim any khatedari rights.

7. We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties.

8. Reiterating the submissions made before the learned Single Bench, the learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff has urged that the plea of the State Government before the SDO was totally in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document