Modi, J.—This is a petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution by Shiv Singh against the opposite party Harjiram and the Board of Revenue praying that a writ of certiorari or any other writ, direction or order be issued against them and the decree passed by the Board of Revenue., dated the 22nd April, 1955, for Rs. 375/- be quashed.

2. The facts leading to this revision may be shortly stated as follows. The petitioner is Jagirdar of Nokha, Tehsil Nagpur, and the opposite party No. 1 Harjiram was his tenant with respect to a field called badi jao situate in village Nokha. Harjiram brought a suit against the petitioner on the ground that he had been unlawfully dispossessed of the said filed by the latter in Smt. 2000 and thereby he was deprived of the mesne profits thereof amounting to Rs.500/-annually for the Smt. years 2000 and 2001. He also stated that he had filed a suit in the first instance in the Haisiat Court on the 10th July, 1944, the jagir of Nokha being under the management of it, but the management of the Haisiat Court came to an end during the pendency of the suit and, therefore the plaint, was returned to him on the 13th August, 1946, and in that litigation Harjiram alleges to have suffered considerable expense but he assessed it at Rs. 100/-only Harjiram thus filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 1,100/-as compensation in the court of the Judicial Superintendent, Nagaur, on the 27th August, 1946. The petitioner resisted the suit and pleaded that Harjiram has cultivated the field in question from Smt. year 1991 to 1999 to during the minority of the petitioner and had thereafter surrendered the field,and since then the petitioner was in actual cultivating possession of it. The petitioner also contended that Harjiram had filed a criminal complaint against the former under sec. 447 and 427 I.P.C. in respect of the filed in question and that eventually that dispute was settled by compromise on the 12th August, 1944, according to which the petitioner give another field called Kharchiawala to Harjiram for three years. The petitioner also denied his liability to pay any damages to the opposite party. The Assistant Collector, Nagaur, to whom the case had in the meantime been transferred decreed the plaintiffs suit for Rs.92/- as mesne profits. Both parties challenged the above decree in the court of the Additional Commissioner Jodhpur,who allowed the appeal of the petitioner and dismissed Harjirams suit by his order, dated the 28th May,1952.The latter then went in appeal to the Board of Revenue which allowed the appeal by its order, dated the 7th January, 1954. and remanded the case to the Additional Commissioner for fresh decision. Thereupon the Additional Commissioner by his judgment, dated the 27th July, 1954, allowed the appeal of Harjiram and raised the amount of damages granted by the Assistant Collector, namely, Rs. 92/-, to Rs. 520/-. Thereupon both parties went to the Board of Revenue which by its judgment dated the 22nd April, 1955, partially allowed the appeal of the petitioner and reduced the decree passed by the court below to Rs. 375/- only and dismissed the cross-objection of Harjiram.

3. The findings of the Board were briefly these. The Board was of opinion that the Additional Commissioner had given no valid reasons for assessing the mesne profits at Rs. 520/- and that his finding in that respect was conjectural. The Board on a careful examination of the evidence led by the parties, came to the conclusion that the yield of the land was Rs- 35/- and Rs. 40/- respectively for Smt. years 2000 and 2001. Having come to this conclusion, the Board state what the meaning of the expression "compensation" was and relied on the decision of a learned single Judge of this Court in Bhawaniram vs. Seth Ramnarain(l), and then went on to hold that the opposite party was entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 100/- each under three heads, namely (1) the value of the time spent in establishing the right violated, (2) the act

Click Here to Read the rest of this document