SUBODH AGRAWAL
Majid Khan – Appellant
Versus
Salim Khan – Respondent
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that Patwari Halka Kasli submitted a report before Tehsildar Sikar that in Svt. 2058 mentioning that the non-petitioner No. 1 has trespassed on 0.03 hectare of land in khasra No. 394 measuring 2.65 hectare. Thereupon Tehsildar initiated proceeding under Section 91 of the Act against the non-petitioner. During the course of proceedings under Section 91 of the Act, it came to the knowledge that the non-petitioner No. 1 has a `patta' of the disputed and which has been regularised in his favour. Hence the Tehsildar dropped the proceedings under Section 91 of the Act vide judgment dated 31.5.2001. Aggrieved against this order of Tehsildar, the present petitioner, submitted an appeal before District Collector Sikar who dismissed the appeal in his judgment dated 5.2.2002. This order was further challenged by the petitioner before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Sikar who also dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner vide judgment dated 20.1.200
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.