This appeal from an order and judgment of the SDO Bikaner (North) dated 21.2.61 had been filed by Purkha whose application under sec. 136 of the Land Revenue Act was dismissed thereby.

The facts of this case are simple, and briefly stated they are as follows:–

The appellant Purkha filed an application before the learned S.D.O. Bikaner North alleging that he was the original tenant of Khasra No. 573 and had cultivated it in St. years 2012 and 2013. But in St. years 2014 and 15 in the Girdawari the name of the respondent was wrongly entered in collusion with the Patwari. He therefore prayed that entry be corrected and his name entered in the records in place of the respondent. The respondent contested the application on the ground that he was cultivator of the land in dispute and had been cultivating it for a long time and the entries disputed by the appellant were correctly made by the Patwari. He therefore prayed for the dismissal of the application.

On the above pleadings the learned SDO framed the necessary issue i.e. whether the land in dispute i. e. Khasra No. 573 was in the appellants possession in St. years 2014 and 2015 and the entries in the Girdawari were wrongly made. After recording evidence the conclusion at which the trial court arrived was that the entries were correctly made and that the respondent was tenant of the land in dispute and he accordingly dismissed the application.

Now in this appeal it is urged before us that the above decision of the trial court is against the weight of the evidence and is erroneous. It has been urged that the trial court did not appreciate the oral evidence produced by the appellant and also failed to appreciate the significance of the entries standing in the appellants favour in St. year 2012 and 2013. It has also been contended that the trial court was in error in taking into consideration a statement said to have been made by the appellants father Shivji in certain proceedings before the panchayat where Shivji had appeared as witness on behalf of the appellant for the reason that Shivji was never confronted with the statement which he was alleged to have made.

Now before we discuss the judgment of the trial court we would like to briefly examine as to what actually is the purpose and function of Girdawari or Khasra teep and the duties and the role of the patwari in connection therewith as well as those of the lambardar and the Sarpanch who accompanied the Patwari. In this connection we must refer to chapter 4 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Land Record) Rules or 1957 for the preparation of quadrennial and annual records. The rules in regard to Khasra teep begin from R. 64 and a reference to sub R. (1.) thereof makes it clear that Khasra Girdawari is the record in which are entered the details of rental and tenancy rights, agricultural statistics and the changes occurring therein for each plot which is numbered on the village map. Now the present dispute relates to tenancy rights for in essence the appellants claim is that he is the tenant of the plot noted as Khasra No. 573. These Tenancy rights are to be recorded in column No. 6 of the Girdawari in accordance with the relevant rule, i.e., R. 74 sub-R. (1) which reads as follows:–

"The name of tenant or a person who holds land from the Government or from an estate-holder and who is or would be, but for a contract express or implied, liable to pay rent for his holding, would be entered in this column, along with the parentage, caste, residence and class of the tenancy."

The perusal of this rule would make it abundantly clear that this column is provided for recording or entering the name of the person who is actually the tenant of the plot concerned. Now it has been laid down and made clear in a number of decisions by this Board that tenancy can be created only in two ways i.e. either by contract between the parties concerned or by operation of law. Therefore keeping the requirements of R. 74 in mind the duty of the Patwari is to find o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document