Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1610 (RAJ)

Radhey Shyam v. Board of Revenue

2006-05-11

K.S.RATHORE

body2006
Judgment K.S. Rathore, J.-This writ petition is directed against the Judgment dated 16.04.1984 passed by the Assistant Collector, Kekri, Judgment of Revenue Appellate Authority dated 210.1984 and Judgment dated 07.09.1993 passed by the Board of Revenue in appeal and 25.06.1996 in review. 2. Brief facts of the case are that after death of Bhura Lal in the year 1959, mutation No. 119 was attested on 012.1960 in the name of Mool Chand, father of the petitioners by the concerned Gram Panchayat. And the record relating to mutation No. 119 was corrected on behalf of Mool Chand and his name was entered. 3. Petitioners father Mool Chand stated in Exhibit-D-9 that Khasra No. 3183 measuring 72 Bigha 18 Biswa and other land measuring 22 Bigha and 5 Biswa was recorded in his name and Govind Ram in the record prepared by Settlement Department. But name of Govind Ram over ½ portion of the land Khasra No. 3183 out of which new number given as 1899 could not be recorded in Jahmanbandi Chosala and whole land i.e., 72 Bigha 18 Biswa was recorded in the name of Mool Chand. Mool Chand stated that 36 Bigha 9 Biswa may be recorded in the name of Govind Ram. Since Govind Ram died and thus 36 Bigha 9 Biswa may be recorded in the name of Ayodhya Devi daughter in law of Govind Ram and remaining half portion of Khasra No. 3183 (1899) may be recorded in Mool Chands name. The statement of Mool Chand was duly signed and submitted before the trial Court and marked as Exhibit-D-9. Therefore, considering this fact, the Assistant Collector, Kekri passed the decree and half portion was recorded in the name of Ayodhya Devi. 4. Aggrieved and dissatisfied with the Judgment dated 16.04.1984, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority and the Revenue Appellate Authority vide Judgment dated 16.04.1984 upheld the Judgment passed by the Assistant Collector, Kekri dated 16.04.1984. Against which, the petitioner preferred second appeal before the Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue also upheld the Judgment rendered by the Revenue Appellate Authority and Assistant Collector, Kekri vide Judgment dated 07.09.1993 and the Board of Revenue also dismissed the review preferred by the Petitioners vide Judgment dated 25.06.1996. 5. Against which, the petitioner preferred second appeal before the Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue also upheld the Judgment rendered by the Revenue Appellate Authority and Assistant Collector, Kekri vide Judgment dated 07.09.1993 and the Board of Revenue also dismissed the review preferred by the Petitioners vide Judgment dated 25.06.1996. 5. Having considered the rival submissions and the Judgment s referred by the respective parties, since all the Courts below have given concurrent finding against the petitioners and the correction in the entry was made on behalf of Mool Chand and in view of this fact, the concurrent finding given by all the Courts below requires no interference by this Court. Consequently, the writ petition fails being devoid of merit and same is hereby dismissed.