Honble RAFIQ, J.—The petitioners have filed this writ petition challenging the judgments of the Board of Revenue dated 24.11.1997 and that of the Revenue Appellate Authority dated 10.11.1994 and have prayed for upholding the judgment of the Assistant Collector, Nandwai dated 7.10.89 whereby their revenue suit was decreed.

2. Factual matrix of the case is that the predecessor in title of the petitioner namely Medue filed suit for declaration for permanent injunction with regard to 2 bighas and 15 biswas of land of khasra No. 196/3 situated in revenue village Chetari, Tehsil Nadbai, District Bharatpur. The case set up by the plaintiff before the Court of Assistant Collector was that he was in possession of the land and was recorded khatedar tenant. During the last settlement proceedings, his name was recorded in khasra Girdawari of Samvat 2029 to 2032. But his name was deleted therefrom for subsequent period which adversely affected their interest. The Tehsildar, Nadbai was bent upon ejecting the plaintiff and has in fact initiated proceedings against him u/Sec. 91 of the Land Revenue Act, 1956 (for short "the Act"). Prayer was made for decree of declaration of ownership and permanent injunction. The revenue suit was proceeded ex parte against the defendants by order of the Assistant Collector, Nadbai dated 19.9.1986 and in these circumstances, it was decreed in favour of the plaintiff on 7.10.89 declaring him to be khatedar tenant of the land. Aggrieved thereby, the State of Rajasthan field an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bharatpur (for short "the Authority") who by order dated 1.8.87 allowed the appeal thereby reversing the judgment and decree passed by the Assistant Collector. The petitioners thereupon filed a further appeal before the Board of Revenue u/S. 224 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. The Board by its judgment dated 24.11.97 has however dismissed the appeal.

3. I have heard Shri Pawan Pareek, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri H.V. Nandwana, learned Deputy Government Advocate for the State.

4. Shri Pawan Pareek, the learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the plaintiff was in possession of the land in dispute and on the basis thereof, the Assistant Settlement Officer by issuing Parcha Lagan dated 16.5.74 in his favour has acknowledged him to be khatedar of that land. Mutation No. 12 was attested in the name of plaintiff and divided khasra No. 196 of which Khasra No. 196/3 in an area of 1 bigha and 15 biswas was recorded in favour of plaintiff Lahri. The order of the Assistant Settlement Officer dated 16.5.74 and the attestation of Mutation No. 12 by Tehsildar dated 10.9.75 were not challenged by the respondents before any Superior Authority / Appellate Forum by filing any appeal. The order thus attained finality. The Tehsildar committed an error of law in cancelling the mutation No. 12 by order dated 2.1.1977 two years after the mutation was attested. Shri Pawan Pareek argued that even if that the Tehsildar has the power to review, then also the limitation prescribed for filing review petition was only 30 days while the review in this case has been made after two years. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the board of Revenue has recorded a wrong finding in holding that the plaintiff based his suit merely on the basis of possession but the records do not indicate that he actually was in possession prior to Samvat 2012. According to him, the plaintiff was shown as Gair khatedar tenant in Ex.P2 and note was appended regarding the order of Assistant Settlement Officer. The order passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer having not been challenged, the learned Board of Revenue was not justified in holding that it was the case of recording wrong entries. He argued that the fact that the plaintiff was in possession of land at the time of commencement of Rajasthan Tenancy Act and therefore by virtue of Section 15 thereof was entitled to be conferred with the khatedari right

Click Here to Read the rest of this document