Back
VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Prakash Chandra – Appellant
Versus
Board Of Revenue For Rajasthan At Ajmer – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Vinit Kumar Mathur, J. - The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 16.03.1999 passed by the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer, whereby the reference made by the Collector, Jaisalmer was answered and the petitioners were directed to be removed from the subject piece of land holding them to be an encroacher.
2. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioners were in possession of the land in question since a very long time as the petitioners' forefathers along with other persons were in occupation of subject piece of land. The petitioners were cultivating the land in question and on a dispute being arose, a revenue suit was preferred under Section 88 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act') for declaration of khatedars of the land in question. The suit was decreed in favour of the petitioners vide judgment and order dated 17.08.1982 (Annex. 1) passed by the Assistant Collector, Pokaran. Against the judgment and order dated 17.08.1982, no appeal was preferred by the State. In the year 1985, the State Government made a reference to the Board of Revenue under Section 232 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 which
The importance of evidence in establishing possession prior to 1955 and the need for proper evaluation of evidence by the Board of Revenue.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of not substituting the court's own conclusions for those reached by the lower courts, especially when there are concurrent findi....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for strong documentary evidence to prove continuous possession and khatedari rights over the land, and the significance of concurre....
The Board of Revenue exceeded its jurisdiction by reversing the Revenue Appellate Authority's well-reasoned findings based solely on the non-production of evidence, which was not a deliberate act of ....
Failure to frame proper issues after considering the averments in the plaint and the written statements can lead to a decision being remanded for a fresh decision.
The court upheld the concurrent findings of the revenue Courts and emphasized the limited jurisdiction of the court in issuing directions under a writ petition.
The sufficiency of evidence and material to support conclusions regarding rights over the land is crucial in cases involving correction of entries in revenue records.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
