A party has the right to seek corrections in revenue records, and questions of fact are to be determined by trial courts, not through writ intervention.

ORDER :

(Inderjeet Singh, J.)

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-defendant challenging the order dated 27.08.2021 whereby the application filed on behalf of the petitioner-defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 read with section 151 CPC as well as the order dated 27.09.2022 passed by the Board of Revenue, whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner-defendant against the order dated 27.08.2021 was dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for correction in the revenue entries before the trial Court under Section 88 , 89, 90, 91 & 92 and Section 188 of the RAJASTHAN TENANCY ACT , 1955. During pendency of the said suit, the petitioner-defendant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC which was dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 27.08.2021, against which the petitioner-defendant filed a revision petition before the Board of Revenue, which was also dismissed by the Board of Revenue vide order dated 27.09.2022. Hence, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-defendant challenging the order dated 27.08.2021 as well as the order dated 27.09.2022.

3. Counsel for the petitioner-defendant submits that both the courts below have committed serious illegality in dismissing the application filed on behalf of the petitioner-defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 read with section 151 CPC. Counsel further submits that no cause of action has arisen to the respondent-plaintiff to file the suit before the trial Court and prayed for allowing the writ petition.

4. Counsel for the respondents has opposed the writ petition.

5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. This writ petition filed by the petitioner-defendant deserves to be dismissed for the reason that the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff is for correction in the revenue entries and the respondent-plaintiff in the suit has specifically mentioned that the Tahsildar has committed serious illegality in making wrong entries in the revenue record with regard to Khasra No.431/192 which was allotted to the respondent-plaintiff and in my considered view, the respondent-plaintiff has every right to file the suit for correction in the revenue entries and whether the entries made are correct or not is a question of fact which can be decided by the trial Court after recording the evidence of both the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the present case, no case is made out for interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

7. Hence, this writ petition stands dismissed.