Honble RAFIQ, J.—These two writ petitions have been filed by the defendant-petitioners. Petitioners No.1 to 5, 8 & 9 in SBCWP No.1126/1998 are legal representatives of Makkhan Singh, the original defendant No.2, in the suit filed by Mooliya, the original plaintiff, whereas petitioners No.6 & 7 are sons of Mahetab Singh, father of originaldefendant No.2 Makkhan Singh (since deceased). A writ of certiorari has been prayed to be issued setting-aside the judgments passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority dated 9.7.1996 and the Board of Revenue dated 2.1.1998 and for restoration of the judgment & decree dated 7.11.1979 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer Kishangarhbas whereby the revenue suit filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed.

2. Plaintiff Mooliya, now represented by respondents No.3 to 5 in writ petition No.674/98 and plaintiff Jagmal Singh and Paras Ram who are represented by respondent Nos.3 to 9 in Writ Petition No.1126/98, filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants (petitioners herein) inter-alia praying therein that Govind Singh was biswedar of the land bearing Khasra No.162 measuring 3 bigha 12 biswa, Khasra No.135 measuring 2 bigha 5 biswa, Khasra No.136 measuring 2 bigha 11 biswa and Khasra No.143 measuring 2 bigha 43 biswa in village Lamachpur, Tehsil Mundawar, District Alwar. He mortgaged the said land with the plaintiffs which was attested in their favour on 24.6.1945. Since then, the plaintiffs were in continuous possession of the land and have also been paying the land revenue. With the abolition of the biswedari by the Rajasthan Biswedari and Abolition Act 1959 (for short, “Act of 1959”), the land in dispute vested in the State Government. Therefore, plaintiffs prayed in the suit that defendant Govind Singh had no right or claim over the said land. He however in collusion with the other defendants wanted to dispossess the plaintiffs from the land and was bent upon to destroy their crops so as to transfer the said land in favour of a third party and hence, plaintiffs sought permanent injunction against the defendants with a prayer to restrain the defendants from interfering with their peaceful possession of the plaintiffs (respondents herein) on the land in dispute. In the written-statement jointly filed by the defendants, it was stated that defendant Govind Singh was biswedar of the land in dispute who mortgaged the same in favour of the plaintiffs. Rest of the averments of the plaint were however denied. It was asserted that the plaintiffs were not in possession of the land and crops presently standing on the land were sawn by defendant Govind Singh. Since the plaintiffs were presently not in possession of the land, there was no question of granting permanent injunction in their favour and the suit being not maintainable was liable to be dismissed.

3. Learned S.D.O. Kishangarhbas while dismissing the suit vide judgment & decree dated 7.11.1979 held that defendant petitioners were in possession of the property in question and in view of the provisions of the Act of 1959, the State Government is a necessary party since the land already stood vested in it on the date of abolition of biswedari. Neither of the parties had any title in the land. It was further held that after the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short, “Act of 1955”) came into force w.e.f. 15.10.1955, the land in question in view of Section 43 of that Act stood automatically redeemed from mortgage on expiry of 20 years from the date of mortgage.

4. Aggrieved thereby, plaintiffs filed two appeals bearing Appeal No.9/1988 and 10/1988 before the Revenue Appellate Authority Alwar. During pendency of appeals, defendants Makkhan Singh and Govind Singh and plaintiff Jagmal Singh expired. Their legal representatives were taken on record. Both the appeals were allowed by the Revenue Appellate Authority vide judgment & order dated 9.7.1996 who reversed the findings of the S.D.O. Kishangarhbas about possession of the defendant-petitioners and he

Click Here to Read the rest of this document