The court upheld the dismissal of the appellant's claim for khatedari rights due to insufficient evidence, distinguishing the case from a prior Supreme Court ruling based on differing facts.

ORDER :

This intra-court appeal has been filed by the appellant being aggrieved with the order dated 13.10.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13703/2020 whereby, the writ petition has been dismissed.

2. In the writ petition, the appellant-writ petitioner has challenged the orders passed by the Board of Revenue dated 03.12.2020, Revenue Appellate Authority dated 26.11.2019 and the order dated 13.06.2017 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer.

3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant-plaintiffs have preferred a revenue suit under Sections 88 & 92 "A" of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 before the Sub Divisional Officer, Sardarshahar for declaration and permanent injunction with a prayer to declare them as khatedars of 50 bighas & 6 biswas of land in khasra No. 100 of village Sardarshahar while claiming that in the Svt. Year 2012 when the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 came into force, their forefathers were the cultivators over the land in question and, therefore, by virtue of Section 15 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, they became the khatedars of the land in question.

4. The Sub Divisional Officer has dismissed the said suit filed by the appellant vide order dated 13.06.2017 while observing that the plaintiffs have failed to produce any documentary as well as oral evidence to prove that their forefathers were the tenants over the land in question in Svt. Year 2012. The Sub Divisional Officer had also observed that in support of their claim, the plaintiffs have produced copies of khasra girdawaries, however, from the perusal of the said khasra girdawaries, it is not proved that the forefathers of the plaintiffs were in possession over the land admeasuring 50 bighas and 6 biswas in khasra No. 100 as in those khasra girdawaries, somewhere the land admeasuring 20 bighas is mentioned and somewhere, it is mentioned as 23 bighas, 33 bighas and 35 bighas. It was also concluded by the Sub Divisional Officer that from the other documentary evidence available on record, it is clear that the plaintiffs have encroached over some part of the land in question and for that reason, penalties have been imposed upon them and from time to time, they have also been dispossessed from the land in question. Ultimately, the Sub Divisional Officer had dismissed the suit while observing that the plaintiffs have failed to prove that in the Svt. Year 2012, their forefathers were the tenants over the land in question.

5. The Revenue Appellate Authority as well as the Board of Revenue have also dismissed the first appeal and the second appeal preferred by the appellant while concurring with the findings as recorded by the Sub Divisional Officer, Sardarshahar.

6. After taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances of the case and also taking into consideration the fact that the land in question has already been allotted to the Municipal Board, Sardarshahar way back in the year 2005 and at present, the possession over the land in question is also with the Municipal Board and certain constructions have also been raised and, the learned Single Judge has declined to interfere with the concurrent findings as recorded by the Subordinate Court and dismissed the writ petition.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Deepa v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in (1996) 1 SCC 612 and submitted that Hon'ble the Supreme Court while relying on the entries made in the khasra girdawari of the Svt. Year 2012, has held the appellant as khatedar of the land, as the name of the appellant's father figured in the khasra girdawari, therefore, the appellant is liable to be declared as khatedar of the land on the basis of entries in Khasra girdawari of relevant years.

8. We have gone through the decision rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Deepa (supra), however, the facts of the said case were altogether different from the pre