Hon'ble LODHA, J.—In this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the judgments and decrees dated 2.6.87, 18.7.96 and 25.9.01 passed by the Assistant Collector, Banswara, Revenue Appellate Authority, Banswara and Board of Revenue, Rajasthan respectively.

2. The brief facts are that original plaintiff Taher Ali filed a suit for permanent injunction u/S. 92 A read with Section 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (in short "the Act of 1955" hereinafter) against the original defendant Dalichand alleging inter alia that the plaintiff is a recorded khatedar tenant of 2 bighas 9 biswas land comprising Arazi No. 1940, situated in Banswara and he is in actual physical possession of the aforesaid land. It was alleged that on or about 19.4.83, the defendant Dalichand attempted to tresspass over the portion measuring 30' x 45' on the northern side of the said land for raising construction. On the application being preferred by the plaintiff before the Tehsildar, Banswara for stopping the encroachment over the land in possession of the petitioner, the site was inspected by the Patwari. At the time of inspection, the defendant was found raising construction. Inspite of the directions issued by the Patwari and the Tehsildar concerned, the defendant did not stop the construction and asserted that he will raise construction. The defendant claimed that the plot in question was purchased by him from the municipality and therefore, he has every right to proceed with the construction. Under these circumstances, the original plaintiff Taher Ali filed a suit for injunction against the defendant Dalichand in respect of the aforesaid land.

3. The suit was contested by the defendant Dalichand that he had purchased the plot No. 143 measuring 30' x 45' from the municipality under a patta dated 21.1.49 and he is in possession of the said plot since then. It was submitted that the construction was being raised after obtaining due permission from the Municipal Board, Banswara. It was contended that the plot in question is not an agriculture land and the suit is triable by the revenue Court and deserves to be dismissed for this reason alone.

4. After the trial, the suit was dismissed by the Assistant Collector, Banswara vide judgment and decree dated 2.6.87. The learned trial Court accepted the defendant's claim that he had purchased the plot in question from the Municipal Board vide patta No. 561 dated 21.1.49 and the plaintiff cannot be deemed to be in possession and he is not entitled for the decree for injunction.

5. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 2.6.87 plaintiff Taher Ali preferred an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Banswara. The appeal was dismissed by the Revenue Appellate Authority vide judgment and decree dated 18.7.96 holding that the land in question is abadi land and merely because the land has not been entered in the revenue record as Abadi, the defendant cannot be made to suffer. The Revenue Appellate Authority held that on the basis of the documents on record, the plaintiff cannot be said to be in possession of the land in question. That apart, the Revenue Appellate Authority opined that since the plot in question is Abadi land therefore, the Revenue Court has no jurisdiction to issue a permanent injunction in the matter.

6. On further appeal, the Board of Revenue has affirmed the findings arrived at by both the Courts below and accordingly, the Second Appeal preferred by the legal representatives of plaintiff Tahar Ali, the petitioner herein, inter alia against the legal representatives of the defendant Dalichand, respondents No. 5 to 12 herein has been dismissed vide impugned judgment and decree dated 25.9.01. Hence, this writ petition.

7. It is contended by the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioners that the learned Courts below have committed an error apparent on the face of record in holding that the suit land is not an agriculture land inspite of the fact that Arazi No. 1940 of which the disputed la

Click Here to Read the rest of this document