CW4457/2013

// 1 //

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

ORDER

IN

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4457/2013

With

Stay Application No.3461/2013

Chand Mal and Others Vs. Board of

Revenue, Ajmer and Others

Date of Order ::: 06.12.2013

Present

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq

Shri N.K. Maloo, Senior Counsel with

Shri Vinod Kumar Tamoliya, for petitioners

Shri K.K. Mehrishi, Senior Counsel with

Shri Sanjay Mehrishi, for respondents

####

//Reportable//

By the Court:-

This writ petition has been filed by three

petitioners against judgment dated 29.11.2012 passed by

the Board of Revenue, whereby their second appeal filed

against judgment dated 28.04.2004 of the Revenue

Appellate Authority, Jaipur, in Appeal No.135/2001 was

dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 30.04.2001

in Revenue Suit No.83/1996 passed by Assistant

Collector, Chaksu, was affirmed and their suit for

declaration and possession was dismissed.

According to petitioners, the land of Khasra

Nos.1185, 1187, 1188, 1189, 1190, 1191, 1192, 1193 and

1196, total measuring 6 bighas and 9 biswas, situated

in Village Chandlai, was in khatedari of Bhuriya,

grandfather of petitioners. Upon death of Bhuriya in

1959, the said land was mutated in the name of Guliya,

father of the petitioners, vide mutation no.103 on

20.05.1960. It was thereafter that Patwari concerned

fraudulently attested mutation of the said land vide

CW4457/2013

// 2 //

mutation no.235 in favour of Kalyan on the basis of

oral statement of the then Sarpanch that Bhuriya told

him that he would have no objection if the land is

mutated in the name of Kalyan, which was mutated in his

name on 30.06.1960. In fact, the land was given to

Kalyan, father of the defendants only for cultivation

on crop sharing basis in 1960. Kalyan, however, stopped

giving share in the crop and, therefore, he was ousted

from the said land in 1978 and another cultivator was

put in possession with the same understanding that

cultivation would be on crop sharing basis. Kalyan died

in the year 1981. Defendant illegally took possession

of the said land in 1985 from that another cultivator.

When petitioners learnt about fraudulent entry of the

names of the defendants in the revenue record and the

mutation attested in favour of their father Kalyan on

30.06.1960, petitioners filed a suit for declaration

and recovery of possession against the defendants on

06.10.1996 under Sections 88, 89, 183 and 188 of the

Rajasthan Tenancy Act. The suit was contested by the

defendants. They filed written statement on 13.09.2000.

Assistant Collector, Chaksu, vide order dated

30.04.2001, dismissed the suit. Petitioners then filed

an appeal against the said judgment, which too was

dismissed by the Revenue Appellate Authority vide order

dated 28.04.2004. The Board of Revenue however,

subsequently allowed the appeal of petitioners vide

order dated 26.08.2010 and set aside the judgment of

two courts below and decreed the suit in favour of

petitioners. Aggrieved thereby, respondents approached

this court by way of filing writ petition, being Writ

Petition No.12415/2010, assailing the said judgment of

CW4457/2013

// 3 //

the Board of Revenue. This court, vide judgment dated

19.11.2010 set aside the judgment of the Board of

Revenue and remanded the matter observing that the

Board has not examined the issue of limitation while

reversing the judgment passed by two courts below. The

Board of Revenue has now, dismissed the appeal filed by

the petitioners vide judgment dated 29.11.2012. It is

against the backdrop of these facts that present writ

petition has been filed by petitioners assailing

aforesaid three judgments.

Shri N.K. Maloo, learned Senior Counsel,

appearing for petitioners, argued that learned courts

below failed to appreciate that mutation attested in

favour of Kalyan, father of the d