Honble SHARMA, M.—This review petition has been filed under Section 229 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 against the impugned judgment of the Division Bench of the Board (constituting Honble Members Shri S.P. Pathak and Shri G.P. Sharma) dated 20.12.2000 in Appeal No.195/92.

2. The brief facts of this review petition are as under:

3. The plaintiff/non-petitioner No.1 filed a revenue suit u/S. 88 & 187 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act with respect to Khasra No.938/149 measuring 7.10 bigha situated in Village Balita, Tehsil Ladpura, District Kota which was decreed by the trial Court on 23.1.90. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, an appeal was preferred before the Court of Revenue Appellate Authority by the present review-petitioner Jogendra Singh S/o Nand Singh and the same was rejected by the appellate Court vide its judgment dated 26.5.92.

4. The second appeal under Section 224 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (to be referred hereinafter as `the Act) against the judgment and decree of the Revenue Appellate Authority, Kota dated 26.5.92 was filed before the Board. The D.B. of the Board constituting Honble Members Shri S.P. Pathak and Shri G.P. Sharma, dismissed the second appeal vide its judgment dated 20.12.2000 passed in the Second Appeal Decree No. 195/92/TA/Kota. The applicant-petitioner being aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 20.12.2000 passed by the Board has now preferred a review petition dated 24.1.2001 before the Board.

5. We have heard the arguments of the learned advocates of both the parties and perused the entire record of the D.B. of this court and all the subordinate Courts.

6. The learned counsel for the review-petitioner has argued that the D.B. of the Board has overlooked certain important facts. It has been argued that there is no provision in the Rajasthan Tenancy Act by which the khatedari rights can be conferred through declaration by way of compromise between the contesting parties. It has further been argued that the trial court has erred in passing the impugned judgment and decree by declaring the khatedar-tenant of 7.3 bigha of khasra No.216 of the land under dispute. It has also been argued that without any evidence, oral or documentary, on record which could have proved Bhairu Lal, father of the present non-petitioner No.1 as sub-tenant since Svt. 2012 of the disputed land, the suit has wrongly been decreed in his favour. The plaintiff/non-petitioner No.1 could not prove his suit, even then the same has been decreed in his favour. It has also been put up assertively during the arguments that the subordinate courts have not appreciated this fact that the disputed land as per revenue record had been in the name of Madho and Narain who were also in possession and cultivation and plaintiff/non-petitioner No.1 Chauth Mal and his father have not cultivated the same. The petitioner is bonafide purchaser for value of this land who has been deprived of his rights by the impugned judgments of the subordinate courts and the courts have erred in passing the judgment and decree for the entire land 15 bigha of khasra No. 216. It has also been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the revenue suit which was pending in the Court of S.D.O., Kota was transferred to Asstt. Collector which was without knowledge of the petitioner. Hence, the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was without giving due opportunity to the petitioner-respondent.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed that the judgment passed by the D.B. of the Board dated 20.12.2000 in Appeal No.195/92 be set aside and case be remanded to the trial Court for deciding it afresh. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on 2005 AIR Supreme Court page 592.

8. On the contrary, the learned advocate for the non-petitioners has assertively argued that the review petition is not at all maintainable because there is no error apparent on the face of the record in the impugned judgme

Click Here to Read the rest of this document