Honble BALIA, J.–This writ petition is directed to quash the judgment of the Sub-Divisional Officer, (North), Bikaner dated 27th Sept., 1968 (Annex. 1) decreeing the suit of respondent Hazari Mal for ejecting the petitioner from the land in question, the judgment of Revenue Appellate Authority dated 22.7.1975 (Annex. 2) dismissing the appeal against the order dated 27.9.1968, and the order of the Board of Revenue dated 26.9.1986 (Annex. 5) dismissing the second appeal filed by the present petitioner. The petitioner has also prayed for restoration of the order of Board of Revenue dated 9.7.1979 (Annex. 3) by quashing the order dated 23.7.1986 (Annex. 4) by which the order dated 9.7.1979 has been reviewed and recalled. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 28.11.1990 (Annex. 6) rejecting his review application against the order dated 26.9.1986.

(2). One Hazarimal since deceased and whose legal representatives are respondents No. 4/1 to 4/4 has filed a suit in the Revenue Court, i.e. before the Sub-Divisional Officer (North), Bikaner on 23.8.1965 alleging that he is a khatedar tenant of the land measuring 71 bighas & 16 biswas in khasra No. 25 situated in village Devasar. It was claimed that the original land holder was Megh Singh as `Bhokta and the land was cultivated by plaintiffs ancestors and had acquired khatedari rights in it. In Samwat year 2013, (Gregorian Calendar 1956-57) at the request of Tiku Ram, the present petitioner and defendant in the suit, the said land was given to him for cultivation for 5 years and thereafter the defendant requested for continuance of cultivation for one year. This process continued from year to year until filing of the suit in August 1965. The plaintiff also alleged that the land in question was needed for his personal cultivation and therefore, he demanded possession of the land from the defendant but he refused to vacate the land. Plaintiff further came to know, on enquiry, that the land in question has been entered in Tiku Rams name in Girdawari since Samwat 2013.

(3). It is also to be noticed here that the plaint as originally filed on 23.8.1965 was amended vide application dated 30th Sept., 1965 by inserting paragraph 10 `Ka giving specific date on which plaintiff demanded for delivery of possession, and that request was refused by the defendant on 15.8.1965. On the aforesaid allegation a decree for possession of the land in question was sought.

(4). The defendant Tiku Ram denied the plaintiffs allegations including creating a sub-lease in his favour by the plaintiff and plaintiffs claim to khatedari rights. By way of additional plea, in his written statement, he claimed that he was in possession of the land in question since Samwat 2004 (1974-48) and since then he is cultivating the land. He also claimed that since he has been paying rent to the erstwhile `Bhokta and on the resumption of Jagir rent is being paid to the State of Rajasthan and therefore, he is in rightful possession of the land in question.

(5). The trial court after considering the material on record found that the plaintiff has been able to prove that he was khatedar of the land in question and the defendant has failed to prove that he was cultivating the land since Samwat Year 2004. He also found it proved that the land in question was given to defendant in Samwat 2013 by the brother of the plaintiff by way of sub-lease.

(6). On the issue of limitation, it was held to be within limitation by mentioning item 68 of the IIIrd schedule, that plaintiff being a tenant in possession, his right to reject the sub-tenant and obtain possession from his is a continuous cause of action and, therefore, suit cannot be held to be barred by time.

(7). On appeal, before the Revenue Appellate authority by Tiku Ram, the decree passed by trial court was affirmed. The finding about the plaintiffs khatedari interest in the land was affirmed by holding that from Samwat Year 2013 onwards, the defendant was shown as sub tenant and the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document