Research › Browse › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

1995 DIGILAW 745 (RAJ)

Latif v. State of Rajasthan

1995-08-17

B.R.ARORA, D.C.DALELA

body1995
Honble ARORA, J. – Petitioners Latif and Others, who are in the cultivatory possession over 350 Bighas of agricultural land of Khasra No. 85 situated in village Konra tehsil Chautan district Barmer, filed a suit in the Court of the Assistant Collector, Barmer, for declaration of their Khatedari rights. The suit filed by the petitioners was dismissed by the learned Assis- tant Collector, Barmer, by holding that it is triable by the Civil Court and not by the Revenue Court. Dissatisfied with the judgment dated 12.7.61 passed by the Assistant Collector, Barmer, dismissing the suit filed by plaintiff-petitioners Latif and others, they preferred an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority , Bikaner (Camp Jodhpur). The Revenue Appellate Authority, by its judgment dated 14.4.1962, allowed the appeal filed by Latif and others and remanded the case for trial to the Court of the Assistant Collector, Barmer. The Assistant Collector, Barmer, again dismissed the suit filed by Latif and others preferred an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner (Camp Jodhpur), who by the judgment dated 31.7.67, again, allowed the appeal filed by them and remanded the case to the learned Assistant Collector, Barmer, for framing fresh issues and to decide the suit in accordance with law. The Assistant Collector, Barmer, again, by the judgment dated 17.12.69, dismissed the suit filed by plaintiffs Latif and others. Plaintiffs Latif and others filed an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jodhpur, who, by its judgment dated 27.9.73, dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff. A review petition was preferred by the petitioners before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jodhpur, and the Revenue Appellate Authority, by the judgment dated 21.6.84 allowed the review peti- tion and declared the plaintiff-petitioners as the Khatedar tenants for 150 Bighas of land situated in Khasra No. 85 of village Konra, as the petitioner were in the cultivatory possession on 6.1.1950. The Gram Panchayat, KOnra, aggrieved with the judgment dated 21.6.74, passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jodhpur, preferred an appeal before the Board of Revenue and the learned Member of the Board of Revenue, by its judgment dated 29.6.78, allowed the appeal filed by Gram Panchayat, Konra and set-aside the order dated 21.6.74 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jodhpur. Aggrieved of the judgment dated 29.6.78, passed by the Board of Revenue, the petitioners preferred a writ petition before this Court. Aggrieved of the judgment dated 29.6.78, passed by the Board of Revenue, the petitioners preferred a writ petition before this Court. The writ petition, filed by the petitioners, was dismissed by the High Court in limini vide judgment dated 23.1.79. The petitioners preferred Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court and the Honble Supreme Court, by its judgment dated 21.8.81 passed in the Special Appeal, while allowing the appeal, observed as under :– ``We are of the view that when the High Court found that the Revenue Board had taken into accounts extraneous evidence which was not on the record of the case and which was not admissible, the High Court should have remanded the case back to the Revenue Board for disposing it of according to law in the light of the evidence on record. We, therefore, allow the appeal, set-aside the order of the High Court as also the order of the Revenue Board and remand the case to the Revenue Board so that the Revenue Board may dispose it of in accordance with law in the light of the evidence which is on record. The Revenue Board will not take into account any evidence which is not on record in the case. Since the case is an old one, the Revenue Board will dispose it of within one month from the date of receipt of the writ of this Court. There will be no order as to costs. The case was again heard by the Division Bench of the Board of Revenue and the Division Bench of the Board of Revenue, by its judgment dated 8.11.83, agreeing with the view taken by the Division Bench of the Board of Revenue earlier on 9.6.78, accepted the appeal filed by the Gram Panchayat, Konra and set-aside the order dated 21.6.78 passed by the Reve- nue Appellate Authority, Jodhpur. Aggrieved with the order, passed by the Board of Revenue, the petitioners have preferred this writ petition. (2). Aggrieved with the order, passed by the Board of Revenue, the petitioners have preferred this writ petition. (2). It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that (i) the Division Bench of the Board of Revenue did not consider the evidence produced by the respective parties and decided the appeal agreeing with the view expressed by the Division Bench of the Board of Revenue earlier on 9.6.78, (ii) neither the Sarpanch nor any other witness was examined on behalf of the defendants who could have testified that the suit land was ``Gair Mumkin land;(iii) the learned Members of the Board of Revenue wrongly treated the evidence of Karan Singh, the Ex- Jagirdar of Chauhtan, as the Secondary evidence while actually it is a direct evidence; (iv) the evidence produced by the plaintiffs has not been considered and decided; (v) the provisions of Sec. 15 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act have not been taken note of by the D.B. of the Board of Revenue while taking into consideration the provisions of Secs. 13, 14 and 16 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and even these provisions have not been properly considered; (vi) the Division Bench relied upon the Inspection Note and the report of the Tehsildar, which was made in another case and not in this case and the same were not proved by any witness; (vii) the Board of Revenue failed to consider the material available on record and passed the judgment on ima- ginary and extraneous material and the judgment dated 11.1.1910 of the Mehakma Khas was not considered;and (ix) the evidence on record has been misread by the Division Bench of the Board of Revenue and undue importance has been placed on Girdawari Slips. The learned Additional Government Advocate as well as the learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, have supported the judgment passed by the Board of Revenue. (3). We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. (4). Though the Division Bench of the Board of Revenue gave the judg- ment running in about twelve pages but about eleven pages contain the narration of the facts and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and only in the 1-1/4 pages, the whole matter has been discussed and the findings have been arrived-at, which read as under– ``(19). We have carefully gone through the provisions of Secs. 13, 14, 15, 16 and 19 and we feel that the respondents have not been able to fulfil the conditions laid down in any of the three Sections. The facts of the case are amply clear and read not be reiferated. The statement made by the Ex-Jagirdar cannot be given any credence in the absence of any Patta or any other documentary evidence in support of the claim that the above land had been allotted to the respondents by the Ex-Jagirdar. No other documentary evidence in support of the claim of sub-tenancy has been produced. The only documentary evidence that is available is Khasra Girdarawaris for the period S.Y. 2013-2018 which are too inadequate to be relied upon for granting any Khatedari rights. (20). As for the plea of regularisation we feel that it is too late in the day to accept the same. This plea could have been made during the proceedings before the trial Court or even the R.A.A. or even before the Board of Revenue in 1978. The learned counsel for the respondents in fact admitted that he had made this plea for the first time before the High Court of Rajasthan only. We, therefore, feel that this plea cannot be accepted. (21). In view of the above, we are in total agreement with the views expressed by the learned D.B. of the Board of Revenue in its order dated 9.6.78. (22). The appeal is accepted. The order dated 21.6.74 of the R.A.A. is set aside. The judgment, passed by the Division Bench of the Board of Revenue is very scachy and the evidence produced by the parties have not been properly considered and discussed by the Division Bench of the Board of Revenue. Neither the evidence produced by the parties have been considered nor the reasons have been given by the Division Bench of the Board of Revenue why the evidence cannot be relied upon. Even some extraneous material, in violation of the directions given by the Honble Supreme Court, have, also, been considered by the Division Bench of the Board of Revenue. Giving reasons by the adjudicating authority for its decision is a desirable cause of action. Even some extraneous material, in violation of the directions given by the Honble Supreme Court, have, also, been considered by the Division Bench of the Board of Revenue. Giving reasons by the adjudicating authority for its decision is a desirable cause of action. The reasons incorporated in the judgment for accepting or non-accepting the evidence provide a considerable assurance that the decision is the result of its being properly thought-out and the reasons also enable the higher authority to judge the correctness and legality of the judgment passed by the lower Court. The Division Bench of the Board of Revenue has not considered the case in the right perspective as directed by the Honble Supreme Court and merely agreed with the view expressed by the Division Bench of the Board of Revenue earlier on 9.6.78. As the Division Bench of the Board of Revenue has not properly considered and decided the appeal in accordance with the directions given by the Supreme Court and only agreed with the view taken by the Division Bench earlier on 9.6.78, the judgment passed by the Board of Revenue, therefore, deserves to be quashed and set aside.