1

MAGA RAM VS. BOARD OF REVENUE AND OTHERS

(S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 8458/09 )

Dated:- 10.2.14.

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA

Mr. L.R.Punia, for the petitioner.

Ms. Suman Porwal, Dy. Govt. Counsel for the respondents.

1.

This writ petition is directed against judgment dated

3.12.07 of the Board of Revenue Rajasthan, Ajmer whereby

a second appeal preferred by the petitioner herein against

the judgment and decree dated 27.4.01 passed by the

Revenue Appellate Authority, (“RAA”) Jodhpur, affirming the

judgment and decree dated 1.11.2000 passed by the

Assistant Collector, Jodhpur dismissing the suit preferred by

the petitioner under Section 88 and 188 of the Rajasthan

Tenancy Act, 1955 (“the Act”) for declaration of Khatedari

rights and permanent injunction, stands dismissed.

2.

The relevant facts are that the petitioner preferred a

suit for declaration of Khatedari rights and permanent

injunction in respect of agriculture land ad-measuring 12

2

bighas 8 biswas comprising Khasra No.752/26 of Revenue

Village-Guda Vishnoiyan, Tehsil Luni, District Jodhpur. The

petitioner claimed the possession over the land as Khatedar

tenant since Samvat 2007. According to the petitioner, even

after coming in to force of the Act, the petitioner's name

appears in Girdavari and other revenue record, however, on

account of the inadvertent error on the part of the revenue

officials, he was not recorded as Khatedar tenant.

3.

The suit was contested by the respondent-State by

filing a written statement thereto. The State claimed that as

per the revenue record, the land in question is Siwai Chak

Government land and the petitioner is in occupation of the

land as trespasser. It was averred that the petitioner never

remained in continuous possession and as a matter of fact,

he was evicted from the land in question by way of

proceedings taken under Section 91 of the Land Revenue

Act, 1956 (“Act of 1956”) and the penalty was also imposed

upon him.

4.

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial

court framed the issues. The petitioner led evidence,

however, no evidence was produced on behalf of the

3

respondent. After due consideration of the evidence on

record, the trial court arrived at the finding that the

petitioner is holding the possession over the land as

trespasser and therefore, he cannot claim Khatedari rights

over the same. Accordingly, the suit was dismissed by the

trial court vide judgment and decree dated 1.11.2000.

Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before

the RAA under Section 223 of the Act. The findings arrived

at by the trial court were affirmed by the RAA vide

judgment dated 27.4.01. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner

preferred an appeal before the Board of Revenue, which

stood dismissed by the impugned judgment dated 3.12.07.

Hence this petition.

5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

petitioner's name is recorded in Jamabandi of Samvat 2011

to 2014 as Khatedar Tenant and therefore, after coming

into force of the Act, by virtue of provisions of Section 15 of

the Act, he has acquired Khatedari rights over the land in

question. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner had

produced the documentary evidence as well as oral

evidence which were not controverted by the respondent by

4

producing any evidence and therefore, the findings arrived

at by the trial court affirmed by the appellate court are ex-

facie perverse.

6.

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the

respondents submitted that the concurrent findings arrived

at by the courts below after due consideration of the

evidence on record cannot be said to be capricious or

perverse so as to warrant interference by this Court in

exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of

the Constitution of India. Learned counsel submitted that

there was nothing on record to show that t