Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 135 (RAJ)

Jems S. Ram v. The Board of Revenue

2006-01-12

DALIP SINGH

body2006
Judgment Dalip Singh, J.-This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with prayer to set aside the order passed by the learned Board of Revenue dated 25.08.1994. 2. The writ petition arises out of a suit filed by the petitioner for declaration and injunction. It was alleged by the petitioner that the petitioner is an Ex-serviceman and in the Beed Sarkari, Tehsil Jaipur the petitioner is in possession of land which was allotted to him. In Para 2 of the plaint which has been filed as Annexure-1, it has been submitted that on the verbal orders land was allotted to the petitioner on account of the fact that he is an Ex-serviceman under Grow More Food Scheme and he is in possession of 64 Bighas and 6 Biswas of land. It has been submitted that since he was in possession of the land prior to coming into force of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act i.e., in the year 1955, he has acquired khatedari rights in terms of the provisions of Rajasthan Tenancy Act. It was further submitted that on account of the fact that respondents wanted to dispossess the petitioner forceably on 15.09.1970 that cause of action for filing the suit arose. Consequently, the suit was filed on 19.09.1970. 3. The written statement was filed by the respondent which is Annexure-2 on record wherein at Para 1, it was mentioned that the petitioner was allotted land bearing Khasra No. 186/2 measuring 15 bighas on 09.02.1960. It was denied that the petitioner was in possession of land since 1952-53. It was also denied that petitioner has no right to be in possession of the land other than the land allotted to him and further that he is liable to be evicted in terms of Section 91(3) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. 4. The parties led evidence and the learned trial Court by the Judgment dated 10.05.1985 (Annexure-5) dismissed the suit. Learned trial Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner was in possession of portion of Khasra No. 186/3 since Samvat year 2019 and in respect of the remaining portion of the land, learned trial Court rejected the plea of the petitioner that he had acquired khatedari rights in terms of Section 15 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. Learned trial Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner was in possession of portion of Khasra No. 186/3 since Samvat year 2019 and in respect of the remaining portion of the land, learned trial Court rejected the plea of the petitioner that he had acquired khatedari rights in terms of Section 15 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. As per the finding of learned trial Court, the petitioner was unable to prove that he was in possession of the land in Samwat year 2012 when the Tenancy Act came into force. Consequently, the suit of the petitioner was dismissed. 5. The petitioner then preferred an appeal before the learned Revenue Appellate Authority. The learned Revenue Appellate Authority vide its Judgment dated 211.1985 (Annexure-7) allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner. Learned Revenue Appellate Authority decided the appeal in the following manner:- 6. Having held that the rights of the petitioner had been prejudicially affected on account of not having been allotted the promised land being an Ex-serviceman, the learned Revenue Appellate Authority further held as under:- 7. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid Judgment and decree passed by the learned Revenue Appellate Authority, the respondents preferred an appeal before the learned Board of Revenue who by the impugned Judgment dated 25.08.1994 (Annexure-22) accepted the appeal filed by the State and dismissed the suit. Hence, this writ petition. 8. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had been in possession of the land and that in the year 1955 on coming into force of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, the petitioner was entitled to be granted khatedari rights because the land in question had been allotted to the petitioner under verbal orders of Grow More Food Scheme in the year 1952-53. It is submitted that learned Board of Revenue has committed a serious error in reversing the finding given by the learned Revenue Appellate Authority while accepting the appeal filed by the petitioner. 9. A perusal of the Judgment of the learned Board of Revenue goes to show that learned Board of Revenue has taken into account certain documents which were filed by the petitioner himself before it. Among these documents are two letters which were filed by the petitioner, dated 211.1963 and 010.1962. 9. A perusal of the Judgment of the learned Board of Revenue goes to show that learned Board of Revenue has taken into account certain documents which were filed by the petitioner himself before it. Among these documents are two letters which were filed by the petitioner, dated 211.1963 and 010.1962. The said letters, as mentioned in Para 9 of the Judgment of learned Board of Revenue, are available on record, though it is the case of the petitioner that these documents were not exhibited. 10. So far as the aforesaid submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is concerned, it would be relevant to take into consideration the averments made in the writ petition itself . In Para 8 of the petition, the petitioner has mentioned that petitioner had moved an application before the Additional Collector for taking certain documents including the letter dated 010.1962 (04.01.1962 as mentioned in the writ petition) on record. Thus, the document in question which has been taken into account is one of which the genuineness cannot be disputed as the same was filed before the Court below by the petitioner himself . The learned Board of Revenue while deciding the appeal vide Annexure-22 has taken into consideration the letter written by the petitioner himself in the year 1962 and filed by him before the Court. The petitioner himself wrote in the said letter that after the Notification issued by the Government on 06.02.1959 Ex-servicemen were entitled to allotment of 50 Bighas of land. It has been stated by the petitioner himself that he was allotted 50 Bighas of land vide order dated any error apparent on the face of record. The petitioner has claimed for any land other than Khasra No. 186/2 measuring 15 Bighas which was allotted to him. 11. It may also be mentioned that in the meanwhile, the land of the petitioner Khasra No. 186/2 as well as the remaining portion of the land for which the petitioner has filed this suit stand acquired by the Jaipur Development Authority and the possession has already been taken over. In view of the aforesaid, I find no error apparent on the face of record and this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. In view of the aforesaid, I find no error apparent on the face of record and this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. It may also be mentioned that a perusal of the record of learned Board of Revenue which was made available contains a copy of the writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 625/1982 filed by the petitioner challenging the acquisition Notification. In the said writ petition the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner was allotted agricultural land bearing Khasra No. 186/2 measuring 15 Bighas in Beed Sarkari, Tehsil Jaipur. The allotment letter was filed as Annexure-1 to the said writ petition. There is also a mention in the writ petition that petitioner is in possession of the land since 1960 and that the petitioner has raised construction of residential building, houses and well on the said land. Thus, the petitioner had himself stated on oath in the writ petition that the allotment was made to the petitioner of only Khasra No. 186/2 measuring 15 Bighas of land in Beed Sarkari and the said allotment had been made in the year 1960. Thus, the finding which the learned Board of Revenue had arrived at stands corroborated by the admission of the petitioner in the writ petition which is on record. The averments of the writ petition are supported by the affidavit of the petitioner himself . 12. In view of the findings of the Board of Revenue and the reasons mentioned above, it is clear that the petitioner has failed to prove that he was allotted the land in dispute measuring 62 Bighas + 12Biswas on the verbal orders in 1952-53, as claimed by him in the plaint, and also that he was given possession of the land in pursuance of this allotment. The petitioner has thus, failed to prove that he was in possession of this land allotted to him on the coming into force of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 so as to acquire khatedari rights. 13. In view of the aforesaid, I find no reason to interfere with the findings of the fact which have been arrived at by the learned Board of Revenue. Consequently, this writ petition is dismissed and the Judgment of the learned Board of Revenue is maintained.