HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 555/2024

1. Omaram S/o Binjaram, Aged About 42 Years, By Caste Meghwal, R/o Village Chhila, Tehsil Phalodi (Lohawat), District Phalodi.

2. Rewatram S/o Binjaram, Aged About 55 Years, By Caste Meghwal, R/o Village Chhila, Tehsil Phalodi (Lohawat), District Phalodi.

3. Malaram S/o Binjaram, Aged About 43 Years, By Caste Meghwal, R/o Village Chhila, Tehsil Phalodi (Lohawat), District Phalodi.

----Petitioners Versus

1. Shantilal S/o Tikuram, By Caste Paliwal, R/o Village Chhila, Tehsil Phalodi (Lohawat), District Phalodi.

2. Meghraj S/o Tikuram, By Caste Paliwal, R/o Village Chhila, Tehsil Phalodi (Lohawat), District Phalodi.

3. Laluram S/o Tikuram, By Caste Paliwal, R/o Village Chhila, Tehsil Phalodi (Lohawat), District Phalodi.

4. Moolchand S/o Tikuram, By Caste Paliwal, R/o Village Chhila, Tehsil Phalodi (Lohawat), District Phalodi.

5. State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar, Lohawat, District Phalodi.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Roshan Lal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajeev Purohit HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT

Order

12/02/2026

1. Present writ petition has been filed challenging judgment dated 18.09.2023 passed by learned Board of Revenue, Ajmer, whereby the appeal preferred on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 & 2 -

plaintiff, so also the suit filed by them, were allowed and the counter claim of petitioner-defendants was dismissed.

2. Explaining the facts of present case, it is stated that respondent Nos. 1 & 2 - plaintiffs instituted a suit for permanent injunction in respect of land bearing Khasra No. 286, ad- measuring 251 Bigha and 7 Biswa, situated at Chhila, Tehsil Phalodi.

2.1 While contesting the said suit, petitioner-defendants filed their written statement along with a counter claim.

2.2 Learned Assistant Collector, Phalodi, vide its judgment dated 16.02.2018, dismissed the suit filed by respondent-plaintiffs and allowed the counter claim of petitioner-defendants, declaring them khatedars of the land bearing Khasra No. 286 to the extent of 90 Bigha.

2.3 Said judgment and decree dated 16.02.2018 was appealed against before learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Jodhpur, however, learned appellate authority, vide its judgment dated 14.08.2018, dismissed the appeal and upheld said judgment passed by Court of Assistant Collector, Phalodi.

2.4 Challenging both above-said judgments dated 16.02.2018 and 14.08.2018, a second appeal was preferred before learned Board of Revenue.

2.5 Learned Board of Revenue, vide its judgment dated 18.09.2023, allowed the said appeal and, while quashing both said judgments and decree, allowed the suit filed by plaintiffs and dismissed the counter claim of defendants.

2.6 Aggrieved thereby, present writ petition has been preferred before this Court.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that impugned judgment is ex facie erroneous and legally unsustainable.

3.1 Learned counsel submitted that detailed and reasoned findings have been recorded by Court of learned Assistant Collector, so also by learned Revenue Appellate Authority, while allowing the counter claim of petitioners-defendants.

3.2 It is further argued that the long-standing possession of petitioner-defendants has never been disputed by plaintiffs as is clear from the fact that despite the matter being remanded to learned Revenue Appellate Authority, neither any reply to the counter claim was filed nor any evidence was adduced by plaintiffs to rebut the contentions made and evidence submitted by defendants.

3.3 Learned counsel submits that a perusal of impugned judgment shows that learned Board of Revenue although has recorded some findings regarding counter claim of petitioners- defendants, but no observation, not even for namesake, has been recorded as to how the concurrent rejection of plaintiffs’ suit by both learned Courts below was erroneous or perverse. Without recording any findings in relation to the suit filed by plaintiffs, learned Board of Revenue, whil