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 concurrent findings of facts in the absence of irregularity or illegality.

ORDER :

1. Though the matter has been listed under the ‘Orders Category’, however, the matter is being heard today itself with the consent of counsel for both the parties.

2. The instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:-

(i) The impugned judgment dated 03.12.2020 (Ann.12) passed by learned Board of Revenue, Ajmer in Appeal No. 64/2020, judgment dated 26.11.2019 (Ann.10) passed by learned Land Settlement Officer Cum Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner in Appeal No. 47/2017 and judgment and decree dated 13.06.2017 (Ann.8) passed by learned Sub Divisional Officer, Sardarshahar in Suit No. 36/1999 may kindly be quashed and set aside.

(ii) The suit filed by the petitioner-plaintiff before the learned Sub Divisional Officer, Sardarshahar District Churu may kindly be ordered to be decreed.

(iii) The respondents may kindly be restrained from interfering in peaceful possession of the petitioner over the land in question.

(iv) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner and respondent No.4 are brothers and possessing land in Khasra No. 100 admeasuring 50 bighas 6 biswa since before coming into force of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1955’). The petitioner and the respondent No.4 filed a suit for declaration and correction of record under Sections 88 and 92A of the Act of 1955 stating therein that they are having possession over the land in question which was under the possession of their grand father Bhole Shah since Samwat year 2012 i.e. before the coming into force of the Act of 1955 and since then the possession of plaintiffs is continuing.

4. In Samvat year 2012 i.e. 1955, the Act ot 1955 came into force when the actual possession was with the father of the petitioner and respondent No.4, namely, Shri Gulam Shah and thus he became an absolute khatedar of the land and after the death of the father of the petitioner-plaintiff and respondent No.4, the land is in continuous possession of the petitioner-plaintiff and respondent No.4 and thus they are the khatedars of the land but being illiterate they had no knowledge of the record of the agricultural land and the land in question was wrongly recorded as government land by the settlement department at the time of settlement proceedings and thus the petitioner-plaintiff and respondent No.4 are entitled to get corrected the Revenue record as they are having the continuous possession over the land even before Samvat year 2012. Thereafter the patwari had informed the petitioner-plaintiff and the respondent No.4 that as per the revenue record they are not having the legal right over the land in question. On 17.05.1999 the Tehsildar refused to correct the Revenue entries therefore the petitioner-plaintiff and respondent No.4 filed the suit (Annexure.1) with the prayer that the agricultural land of old khasra No. 242 i.e. new khasra No. 100 admeasuring 50 bighas 6 biswas Rohi Town Sardarshahar is in continuous use of the petitioner-plaintiff and the respondent No.4 and thus they are legal khatedars of the land.

5. During the pendency of the suit the use of the land has been changed by the District Collector, Churu vide order dated 16.12.2004 and transferred the land to the Municipal Board Sardarshahar and the mutation entries have also been recorded in the name of the Municipal Board Sardarshahar vide mutation No. 645 dated 23.11.2005 therefore the petitioner-plaintiff and respondent No.4 filed an amended suit (Annexure-2) before the learned trial court on 10.04.2008 and also amended the prayer to grant permanent injunction.

6. The Naib Tehsildar, Sardarshahar filed a written statement (Annexure-3) to the suit whereby he admitted the fact that the petitioner-plaintiff and the respondent No.4 and their family members are cultivati