09

S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.3229/2004

Date of Order

:

06-08-2004

HON'BLE MR. N.P.GUPTA,J.

Mr.R.S.Choudhary, for the petitioner.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Perusal of Annex.9, shows that

Tehsildar was intimated about the appointment of Receiver over Khasra No.86

and 87/224, total 31 bighas 15 biswas vide order dated 8.11.2001. Then from

Annex.10, it appears that Tehsildar addressed some communication on

16.11.2001 pointing out "माम मेहराणा के ख.नं. 87/224 क भूिम तरमीम शुदा

नहं ह तथा जैन याऊ क भूिम के कजे के बारे म जानकार नहं हईु "

whereupon the SDO conveyed to Tehsildar that location of land be identified, by

recording the statement of neighbours, a direction was also given to hold a

detailed inquiry. Thereafter the Tehsildar appears to have held an inquiry by

recording evidence, and has taken possession of land, on which Receiver was

appointed. As appears from Annex.11, and specially para 5, that according to

present petitioner, Jain Pyau has given wrong statement before the Subordinate

Court, and by misleading that authority, got the land attached exparte. Look at

these averments, does show that Tehsildar did make inquiry, and did record some

evidence, wherein the petitioner did not participate. The petitioner has not

produced before the court, the conclusion arrived at by Tehsildar, and reasons

given, nor has made any averments in the writ petition about any such inquiry

having been held.

It is in the above background that the petitioner seeks to challenge the

impugned orders Annexure-10 and Annexure-12 dt. 19.11.2001 and 7.1.2002

passed by the Sub divisional Officer, so also the orders dt. 14.2.2002 of the

Revenue Appellate Authority, and dated 29.7.2003 of the Board of Revenue.

So far the order dt. 19.11.2001 being Annexure-10 is concerned, it has

already been considered in the foregoing paragraph. By this order S.D.O. had

directed the Tehsildar to look into the matter, record the statements of the

witnesses, and identify the land, and proceed. Then, vide order dt. 7.1.2002 being

Annexure-12, the learned S.D.O. had rejected the petitioner's application praying

that the plaintiff has got the land no. 87/225 attached in an ex-parte manner by

giving wrong statements, and misleading the Court, therefore, the land be ordered

to be released from the receiver. The learned S.D.O. found that the land in

question was given in receivership, and the Tehsildar has taken the land in

receivership after taking measurement on the plot, the plaintiff has filed a suit for

declaration of Khatedari rights wherein the matter is to be decided after taking

evidence of both the parties. Thus, the application was dismissed.

It is against this order that the petitioner filed appeal before the learned

Revenue Appellate Authority which has been dismissed as not maintainable,

recording the finding that Tehsildar has taken possession of the land after

measuring it on the site.

It is against this order that a revision was filed before the Board of

Revenue which has been dismissed by the order. 14.2.2002 maintaining that

Tehsildar had taken possession after measuring it on the site, and has taken

possession of the land on which receiver was appointed. It was further observed

that if there is dispute about the boundary, it can be decided in the main suit itself,

but then at this stage the petitioner has not produced any evidence which may

show that the land taken in the receivership by the Tehsildar includes the

petitioner's land.

In my view, firstly, the order of the S.D.O. dt. 7.1.2002 was not appealable

before the Revenue Appellate Authority, and the petitioner had not filed any

revision against that order. Secondly, notwithstanding all this, all the three Courts

have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the Tehsildar has taken possession

of the land on the site after taking measurements, and identifying the land. The

learned Board of Revenue has also found that ev