Chandra Ram S/o. Shri Lal Ram vs Board of Revenue For Rajasthan, Ajmer Through Its Registrar

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2020 Supreme(Raj) 476

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
SABINA, NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA, JJ.
Chandra Ram S/o. Shri Lal Ram & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Board of Revenue For Rajasthan, Ajmer Through Its Registrar & Ors. - Respondents
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1205 of 2018 IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1833 of 2009
Decided On : 02-03-2020

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants :Mr. Shubham Kumar Sharma, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Bipin Gupta, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. Vikramditya Shekhawat, Advocate, Ms. Archana, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Anil Mehta, Additional Advocate General.

Headnote:
Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 - Section 19 – Possession - Revenue record - Claim - Single Judge rightly held that mere possession did not create rights to claim Khatedari under Section 19 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955.
Facts of the case:
Appellants have filed the appeal challenging the order passed by learned Single Judge, whereby writ petition filed by appellants was dismissed.
Finding of the court:
A perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge reveals that it had been fairly admitted by counsel for appellants that name of appellants were not shown in revenue record but it was alleged by counsel for appellants that appellants were in possession of land-in-question.
Result: Petition Dismissed.

ORDER :

1. Appellants have filed the appeal challenging the order dated 01.02.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby writ petition filed by the appellants was dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the appellants were in possession of the land-in-question. In fact, in the revenue record also the possession of the appellants was duly recorded.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the appeal and has submitted that the possession of the appellants was not recorded in the revenue record.

4. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge reveals that it had been fairly admitted by the counsel for the appellants that the name of the appellants were not shown in the revenue record but it was alleged by the counsel for the appellants that the appellants were in possession of the land-in-question.

5. In this background, learned Single Judge rightly held that mere possession did not create rights to claim Khatedari under Section 19 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955.

6. Hence, no ground for interference by this court is made out.

Dismissed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document