Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2367 (RAJ)

Mohan v. B. O. R.

2006-07-27

ASHOK PARIHAR

body2006
Honble PARIHAR, J.—The dispute is in regard to 22 bigha 8 biswas of land, situated in Village - Chomu, originally belonging to late Shri Brij Mohan. It has been alleged that late Shri Jodha was servant of late Shri Brij Mohan and he used to look after the land in question. It has further been alleged that, thought, the said Shri Jodha was removed by Shri Brij Mohan on 25.6.1952, however, he tress-passed over tile land again on 28.6.1952. Being aggrieved, late Shri Brij Mohan and one Smt. Gaindi Devi filed an application u/S. 7 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Protection Ordinance, 1949 (for short the Ordinance) against Shri Jodha on 2.8.1952 before the Anti Ejectment Officer (Sub Divisional Officer). The application so filed u/S. 7 of the Ordinance was dismissed by the officer concerned on 24.11.1954. A further revision against the above order dated 24.11.1954 was filed before the Board of Revenue. During the pendency of the revision petition, the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short the Tenancy Act) came into force. As per request made by above-Shri Brij Mohan, the Board of Revenue, treating the said revision petition as an appeal, transferred the same to the Additional Commissioner, Jaipur. The appeal, however, came to be dismissed by the Additional Commissioner, Jaipur vide order dated 13.2.1956. Further revision filed by Shri Brij Mohan also came to be dismissed by the Board of Revenue vide order dated 26.9.1956. The Board of Revenue gave a categorical finding that Shri Jodha has been in possession of the entire land in dispute and the land holders had no case for removal of Shri Jodha from whole or any part of the same. The above order dated 26.9.1956 was not challenged by Shri Brij Mohan any further. 2. It appears that after Tenancy Act having come into force, the mutation of land in question wag made in the name of Shri Jodha as per provisions of Section 19 of the Tenancy Act. Shri Brij Mohan and Smt. Gaindi Devi, after dismissal of their revision petition by the Board of Revenue, again filed a suit under Sections 88 and 1183 of the Tenancy Act against Shri Jodha for declaration and possession, alleging Shri Jodha as a tress-passer. The suit, so filed by Shri Brij Mohan, was dismissed by the Assistant Collector. Shri Brij Mohan and Smt. Gaindi Devi, after dismissal of their revision petition by the Board of Revenue, again filed a suit under Sections 88 and 1183 of the Tenancy Act against Shri Jodha for declaration and possession, alleging Shri Jodha as a tress-passer. The suit, so filed by Shri Brij Mohan, was dismissed by the Assistant Collector. The appeal filed by Shri Brij Mohan was, however, accepted by the Revenue Appellate Authority vide order dated 10.6.1964. The order and decree passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority was challenged by Shri Jodha before the Board of Revenue. The second appeal so filed was partly accepted by the Board of Revenue vide order dated 27.9.1969 remanding the matter back to the Courts below on the question of rights of Shri Jodha under Section 19 of the Tenancy Act. On remand of the matter, the trial Court vide order dated 25.1.1975 held that Shri Jodha had acquired khatedari rights under Section 19 of the Tenancy Act. Consequently, the Revenue Appellate Authority dismissed the first appeal filed by Shri Brij Mohan vide order dated 2.3.1977. The Board of Revenue, however" while accepting the second appeal filed by Shri Brij Mohan vide order dated 23.9.1986, held Shri Jodha to be a tress-passer and ordered for his ejectment with possession to late Shri Brij Mohan, Hence, the present writ petition, challenging the order dated 23.9.1986 passed by the Board of Revenue. 3. Mr. Ajeet Bhandari, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, has submitted that in spite of clear finding given by the Board of Revenue in the earlier application and further provisions of Section 19 of the Tenancy Act the petitioner late Shri Jodha in no case could have been treated as tress-passer. 4. Mr. G.L. Pareek, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, has submitted that findings given by the Board of Revenue earlier shall not act as res judicata in the fresh suit filed by Shri Brij Mohan for declaration and possession. 5. After having considered submissions of learned Counsel for the parties, 1 have carefully -one through the material on record, as also the orders passed by the authorities below. 6. Even as per contention of the respondents, admittedly, Shri Jodha was cultivating the land in dispute, may be on behalf of the land holder. 5. After having considered submissions of learned Counsel for the parties, 1 have carefully -one through the material on record, as also the orders passed by the authorities below. 6. Even as per contention of the respondents, admittedly, Shri Jodha was cultivating the land in dispute, may be on behalf of the land holder. Though, it as been alleged that he was removed on 25.6.1952, however, Shri Jodha again tresspassed on the land after three days on 28.6.1952. Be that as it may, the application u/S. 7 of the Ordinance, filed by late Shri Brij Mohan and Snit Gaindi Devi against Shri Jodha had already been dismissed and it had been held that Shri Jodha could not be treated as tress-passer over the land in question. The mutation of the land in dispute had also been made in the name of Shri Jodha, may be under provisions of Section 19 of the Tenancy Act, however, tire entries, so made in the revenue record, were not challenged. The Board of Revenue itself remanding the matter to the authorities below on the question of tenancy rights of Shri Jodha under Section 19 of the Tenancy Act, subsequently, could not have come to a different finding declaring Shri Jodha as tresspasser. A bare reading of the impugned order passed by the Board of Revenue would show that tile Board was under an altogether erroneous presumption and assumption. Having considered entire facts and circumstances, in my opinion, the impugned order, dated 23.9.1986, passed by the Board of Revenue cannot be sustained ill tile eyes of law. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 23.9.1986, passed by the Board of Revenue is quashed and set aside and the orders passed by the trial Court as also the Revenue Appellate Authority are maintained.