BY THE COURT — These five writ petitions are directed against the common order passed by a Division Bench of the Board of revenue for Rajasthan at Ajmer (for short the Board of Revenue) dated 7.11.1988 disposing of six appeals. For Rajasthan at Ajmer (for short the Board of Revenue)

2. It is alleged that against petitioners Bhala (Writ Petition No.948/89), Sagar(Writ Petition No.949.89) and the father of Megharam & Ors. i.e. Motaram (Writ petition No.947 of ), a suit for eviction under Sec. 180 (1)(b) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was File by late by Maji Sahiba Shri Shekhawatji Govind Kanwarji from who certain pieces of land were, taken by these petitioners for cultivation in village Nasal Bari and Nesal Choti whereas against petitioners Laxman (Writ Petition No.109/89) and Harisingh and Ors.(Writ Petition No.3465 of 1989), writs for eviction were brought under s.l80(l)(b) of the Act respondents No.l to 3, who are legal here of late Maji Sahiba Shri Shekhawatji Govind Kanwar ji. All these fruits were instituted in the year 1971 and they came to be dismissed by the trial court on 13.2.1975. It will be pertinent to note here that during the pendency of these suits before the trial Court, Maji Sahiba Shri Shekhawatji Govind Kanwarji died on 28.12.1971.

However, appeals were filed before the Revenue Appelate Authority, Bikaner. The Revenue Appellate Authority set aside the judgment of the Sub-Division Officer, Bikaner and decreed the suits of the plaintiffs for eviction of the petitioners vide his Judgment dated 4.3.1978. Thereafter, second appeals were filed before the Board of Revenue and they were dismissed by the Board of Revenue vide its judgment dated 31.1.1986.

3. There after, a writ petition was filed before this Court bearing D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2316 of 1986, Megharam & Others V. Vikram Singh and others, which came to be disposed of by this Court vide its Order dated October 27,1987. It was sentenced before this Court that while deciding the appeal, the provisions of Sec. 19, which has been amended in the year 1979, have not been taken in to consideration by the learned Board of revenue and even no request was made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties to take note of the attended provisions of Sec.19 of the Act, which came into force with effect from 29.12.1979. Thus, on the joint request, the case was remanded beck to the learned Board of Revenue for reconsideration. Both the parties were directed to appear before the board of Revenue on 4th of January, 1988 and the Board of Revenue was directed to re-hear the appeals as jointly agreed by the learned counsel for the parties. It was further directed that if the parties so desire, they can move application for amendment of the Pleading and it would be for the Board of Revenue to consider whether after such amendment, any further remand is necessary or the Board itself can decide on the basis of the available record or some other mode which it deems proper according to law. After remand, all the six appeals came to be dismissed by the learned Board of Revenue vide its judgment 7.11.1988. Hence, these writ petitions.

4. We have heard M/s R.N. Bishnoi and Vijay Bishnoi, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. S.N. Sharma for the respondents and Mr. H.R. Panwar, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate and have carefully gone through the record of the case.

5. The only ground on which the previous writ petition bearing D.B. Civil Writ Petition. No.2316 of 1986 was filed, argued and decided was that amended provisions of s.19 of the Act, which came into force prior to the decision of the second appeals by the learned Board of Revenue, have not been taken into consideration by Board of Revenue. The Judgments of the court below were not challenged on their merits. Thus, the now is point that services for consideration before this Court now is whether the Board of Revenue has decided the appeals correctly in view of the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document