Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 346 (RAJ)

Sheo Narain v. Board of Revenue

2003-03-04

RAJESH BALIA

body2003
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioners No. 2 to 4 Nathuram, Mangilal and Rampratap are the sons of the Shri Manphool and petitioners No. 1/1 to 1/4 are the legal heirs of Sheo Narain, son of Manphool. They filed a suit in the Court of Assistant Colonisation Commissioner, Bhakra Project, Hanumangarh on s 3.6 1965 against the State of Rajasthan; Dhokal son of Ramie], Balwanti widow of Hanuman, Krishna Kumar son of Hanuman and Manphool son of Kanwara for declaring them as Khatedars of the land mentioned in para 8 of the plaint (Annex.1). The declaration was sought on the ground that the plaintiffs were the biswedars and now after coming into force the provisions of Rajasthan Zamindari and Bishwedari Abolition Act, 1959 (for short the Act of 1959') they are the Khatedars of the land in question being its owners. 3. In the written statement filed on behalf of the State of Rajasthan and the Tehsildar, it was contended that land bearing Khasras Nos. 360, 343, 348 and 345 in respect of which khatedari rights were sought to be declared by the plaintiffs was always the cultivable land and it was so recorded even at the lime of coming into force the provisions of the Act of 1959 on 15.11.1959. Since 15.11.1959, it vested in the State of Rajasthan. The plaintiffs have no interest in the land in question. The father of plaintiffs No. 1 to 4 and 20 father-in-law of plaintiffs No. 5 to 8 was impleaded as party-defendant, as he was alive at the time of filing of the suit. 4. The trial Court dismissed the suit vide its order Annex. 3 dated 15 1976. In view of the fact that since 7.9.1972, no evidence was produced by the plaintiffs, the trial Court concluded that since the suit is pending for leading evidence by the plaintiff last more than eleven and half years, no further opportunity for producing the evidence can be 5. An appeal was preferred before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Biker. Before the Revenue Appellate Authority, an application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC was filed seeking leave to produce additional evidence before the Appellate Authority which was granted. An appeal was preferred before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Biker. Before the Revenue Appellate Authority, an application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC was filed seeking leave to produce additional evidence before the Appellate Authority which was granted. Consequently, the plaintiffs examined Maniram, Assistant Kanungo of Tehsil Tibi and filed the document in the form of copy of Parcha Khatauni, copy of Parcha Kila bandi, copy of Jamabandi of Samwat Year 2003, and Copy of Khasra Girdawari of Samwat 35 Year 2017 to 2020 and 2014 to 2016. 6. After considering the evidence so brought on record, the Revenue Appellate Authority dismissed the suit finding that the claim of the plaintiffs was on the basis of being Biswedars and Malik/Khatedars of the land in question and if the land in question was 'Khudkast' in their biswedari and had not been so recorded then the plaintiffs should have taken recourse to Section 9 of the Rajasthan Zamindari and Biswedari Abolition Act, 1959. However, the plaintiffs, instead of proceeding under the Rajasthan Zamindari and Biswedari Abolition Act, 1959, had proceeded under sections 88 & 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. Importantly and relevant for the present purposes, the Revenue Appellate Authority also found that at the time of filing the suit and even at the time of deciding the appeal, Manphool Ram who was undisputedly Biswedar of the land in question at the time the Rajasthan Zamindari and Biswedari Abolition Act, 1959 came into force was still alive and the plaintiffs who happens to be his sons and their wives could not have claimed Khatedari interest over the land in question Biswedars. The Khatedari interest if at all in any land as Khudkast could be claimed, it could be claimed only by Biswedar Manphool who was alive on the date of commencement of the Act of 1959 and not by his children who could only succeed to him in case of his death. 7. Faced with this situation, the plaintiff urged before the Revenue Appellate Authority that the land in question was transferred to them by way of a registered 'Tamilk' dated 7.2.1956. However, no such document was produced before the Revenue Appellate Authority nor any amendment was sought in the plaint. In view of the aforesaid, the appeal was dismissed. 8. 7. Faced with this situation, the plaintiff urged before the Revenue Appellate Authority that the land in question was transferred to them by way of a registered 'Tamilk' dated 7.2.1956. However, no such document was produced before the Revenue Appellate Authority nor any amendment was sought in the plaint. In view of the aforesaid, the appeal was dismissed. 8. It was also observed by the Revenue Appellate Authority that if the question of 'Tamliknama' is accepted then obviously the land record would not reflect the correct position at the time of abolition of Biswedari on 15.11.1959 and, therefore, no claim can be founded on that. 9. On further appeal, the Board of Revenue dismissed the same vide its judgment dated 20.8.1980. 10. Against the dismissal of second appeal by the Board of Revenue, a review petition was filed before the Board of Revenue in the year 1981 and along with it, alleged Tamliknama dated 7.2.1956 was filed with an application for taking the same on record W Order 41, Rule 27 CPC. That application was rejected and consequently, the review petition was also dismissed by the Board of Revenue vide its judgment dated 20.4.1990. 11. This led to the filing of the present writ petition before this Court. 12. A perusal of the plaint and the written statement clearly goes to show that the claim to Khatedari was founded on the plaintiffs' status as Biswedars and Malik of the land in question which, according to them, on abolition of Biswedari resulted in their becoming Khatedar tenants under the Act of 1959. At the same time, it is undisputed fact, which is apparent from the plaint itself, that Manphool, whose sons and daughters-in-laws are the plaintiffs, was alive at the time of filing of the suit and was biswedar at the time of abolition of Biswedari. 13. Therefore, no exception can be taken to the finding recorded by the Revenue Appellate Authority, which has been affirmed by the Board of Revenue that claim to khatedari interest on the basis of status Biswedarsor Maliks of the land in question if at all could be claimed, it could only by Manphool and no claim can be based on that basis by the plaintiffs. The declaration of Khatedari interest on the basis of alleged Tamliknama also cannot succeed. The declaration of Khatedari interest on the basis of alleged Tamliknama also cannot succeed. No evidence was led to support this oral argument until the decision of the second appeal by the Board of Revenue. In these circumstances, no fault can be found with the Board of Revenue when it rejected the application for entertaining the alleged Tamliknama as evidence while hearing the review. 14. In view of the aforesaid, I am of the opinion that the suit was rightly dismissed and no interference is called for in this writ petition. 15. Accordingly, this writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******