Honble RAFIQ, J.—This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners against the judgment of the Board of Revenue (for short - the Board) dated 20.10.1998 whereby the appeal filed by respondent No. 4 against the judgment of the Revenue Appellate Authority (for short - the Authority) dated 6.5.1994 was allowed and the judgment/decree passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaipur dated 6.5.1994 was set aside and the judgment passed by learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Kotputli dated 23.1.1991 was restored.

2. Originally a revenue suit under Section 88 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, (for short the Act) was filed by the respondent No.4, Gyarsa before the Sub-Divisional Officer. Dispute between the parties is about the land measuring 25 bighas and 18 biswas of khasra No. 115 situated in village Pragpura. The plaintiff contended that petitioners have trespassed over 12.10 bighas of land out of the aforesaid land situated towards north-east. The petitioners later got their name recorded in the girdawari and also managed to get a parcha issued in their favour during settlement operations. The plaintiff therefore prayed that possession of khasra No. 115 be directed to be handed over to him. The non-petitioners however contested the suit and asserted that this land was given to them by former Jagirdar for cultivation and ever since they are in possession of the same prior to settlement. It was asserted by the petitioner that the land was entered in their name in the revenue records prior to settlement started and petitioners are in possession of the same since Svt. 2017. The suit for injunction in absence of possession is not maintainable which even otherwise is barred by limitation.

3. I have heard Shri R.K. Goyal, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Gyaneshwar Bardar, the learned counsel for the respondents.

4. Shri R.K. Goyal, the learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the learned Board of Revenue erred in law in entertaining the second appeal because no substantial question of law was involved and in fact no substantial question of law has been framed by the Board. Referring to sub-section (2) of Section 224 it was argued that the present matter did not fall in any of the four categories referred to therein and therefore the Board has grossly erred in law in interfering with the judgment of the Revenue Appellate Authority. The Board failed to appreciate that the petitioners were in continuous possession of the land since Svt. 2017 and the respondent No. 4 utterly failed to prove as to how and when he acquired the possession. In the absence of possession, the suit for injunction was not maintainable. Shri R.K. Goyal further argued that plaintiff respondent No. 4 himself in his suit has admitted the possession of the defendant petitioners so much so in para 6 of the plaint, he has stated that even if the plaintiff is treated to have been dispossessed from the land in dispute, the defendants still had no right over the same and being trespasser over the disputed land, would be liable to be ejected. It was argued that the suit for permanent injunction simplicitor was not maintainable because as per the records name of the petitioners was entered as khatedar tenant in jamabandi Svt. 2037 to 2055. S.D.O. had appointed receiver over the same land on 1.8.1972. This ex parte order was set aside and the S.D.O. handed over possession of the land to the petitioners on 30.9.1972. Even in khasra girdawari of Svt. 2012 to 2014 name of Jorawar Singh and Manohar Singh was shown as tenant and the respondent No. 4 Gyarsa was not mentioned either as sub-tenant or khatedar. Mere entry of his name as sub-tenant in Samvat 2016 did not create any right or interest in his favour according to Section 19 of the Act. It was argued that mutation No. 108 dated 20.9.1960 would not be proof of the fact that respondent No.4 was in possession of the land which fact was required to be proved independently by lead of cogent and reliable evidence.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document