SHARMA, M.—This appeal has been preferred by the appellants under Section 224 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter mentioned as the Act) being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned Settlement Officer-cum-Revenue Appellate Authority, Bharatpur on 26.3.2002 in appeal No. 87/94.

2. The thumbnail sketch of the appeal in hand is that the appellants filed a regular suit under Section 88 and 188 of the Act against the State of Rajasthan in the Court of Assistant Collector, Bayana (Bharatpur) in the year 1991. The trial Court decreed the suit on 30.9.94 and declared the appellants as khatedar of khasra No. 225 measuring 21 bighas 08 biswas situated in village Peepari on the basis of his long possession. The State Govt. filed the first appeal assailing the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court dated 30.9.1994. The appellate Court accepted the appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan and quashed the impugned judgment and decree by its judgment dated 26.3.2002. The appellants has preferred this second appeal before this Court challenging the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court.

3. Heard the learned counsels of the parties.

4. The learned counsel of the appellants contended that the impugned judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court have been passed in complete ignorance of the legal provisions and material evidence available on file. He further submitted that the land in question is an ancestral land and the appellants are in possession on the disputed land prior to Svt. 2912. The disputed land was initially cultivated by late Shri Narayan and Shri Harhans and the appellants are the only legal heir of Shri Naryan. He also argued that we were the malik of the disputed land and the provisions of Resumption of Jagir Act do not apply on this disputed land. He urged the Court that the trial Court justly decreed the suit as the appellants and their ancestors were maliks and are in continuous possession of the disputed land. He finally prayed for quashing the impugned judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court.

5. The learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent State contended that the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in favour of the appellants was against the basic principles of law and the trial Court misused its jurisdiction by granting tenancy rights on the disputed land which was pasture land. He also argued that there is no familial connection between Late Shri Narayan and Shri Harhans with the appellants. There is no authentic pedigree and evidence which can establish the direct relationship of appellants with Late Shri Narayan and Harhans. He submitted that there was no documentary evidence on file which can prove long adverse possession of the appellants for more than 30 years but the trial Court accorded tenancy rights to the appellants on the basis of adverse possession. He argued that no notice under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code was given to the State and the appellants were only a trespasser on the pasture land and that too for only 2-3 years. He termed the decree passed by the trial Court as illegal & perverse. He finally stated that the judgment and decree passed by first appellant Court are just and proper and hardly require any interference.

6. We gave thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised by the learned counsels of the parties. We also perused the available record.

7. The record of the trial Court categorically manifests that the appellants/plaintiffs filed a regular suit under Section 88 and 188 of the Act against the State of Rajasthan in the Court of Assistant Collector, Bayana. The four pages casually handwritten plaint filed by the plaintiffs reads that the plaintiffs are in possession of the disputed land since the time of their ancestors and the State has threatened to eject them. There is no pedigree or any explanation which can support the relationship of the appellants with Late Shri Narayan son of Shri

Click Here to Read the rest of this document