Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 23 (RAJ)

Rabia v. Board of Revenue

2008-01-03

N.P.GUPTA

body2008
Honble GUPTA, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order Annexure-3 passed by the learned Board of Revenue accepting the appeal of the State, and dismissing the plaintiffs suit. 3. The plaintiff filed the present suit for declaration, and injunction, alleging interalia to be in possession of the land as tenant from the then Jagirdar since Samvat 2011, and consequent upon resumption of Jagir, and commencement of Rajasthan Tenancy Act he became Khatedar, as he was in possession as a tenant. It was alleged that the settlement authorities have recorded the land as Oran and Rasta, and are threatening to dispossess, therefore, the suit has been filed for declaration. 4. The suit was contested, pleading interalia that the land is of Oran and Rasta, and the petitioner has simply trespassed over the land, but does not get any Khatedari rights, and therefore, the suit was prayed to be dismissed. 5. The learned trial court found, that in the revenue record the land is recorded as unoccupied Oran and Rasta, and that the plaintiff has failed to produce any reliable material show the land to have been given on tenancy by the State, or his having paid land revenue to the State. With these findings the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. In appeal the learned Revenue Appellate Authority entertained application under Order 41 Rule 27, for production of the revenue receipt for Samvat Year 2012 and 2013, for paying revenue to the then Jagirdar. Then, the learned Revenue Appellate Authority relied much upon the revenue receipts, and subsequent receipts, and found, that in Khasra Parivartansheel the petitioner is shown to be in possession regularly since Samvant 2014, and that from the evidence of the plaintiff, Khasra Parivartansheel, and revenue receipts, it is clearly established, that the plaintiff was Sikmi Kastkar of the land, and was in possession. Consequently it was found, that there is no justifiable reason for recording the land as Oran, or Rasta. Thus, the plaintiffs suit was decreed. The State filed second appeal before the learned Board of Revenue, and the learned Board of Revenue found, that the document produced along with the application under 0. Consequently it was found, that there is no justifiable reason for recording the land as Oran, or Rasta. Thus, the plaintiffs suit was decreed. The State filed second appeal before the learned Board of Revenue, and the learned Board of Revenue found, that the document produced along with the application under 0. 41 Rule 27 was not proved, as no evidence was led, and then no opportunity was given to the other party to lead any evidence in rebuttal, and thus the document could not be considered. Then, it was also found that the receipt could not be taken to be conclusive evidence, unless proved. Then, it was also found that even if the receipt is taken on the face value, that does not establish the plaintiffs possession in Samvat Year 2011, and oral evidence was not found to be reliable, and Section 16 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act was also considered, whereunder Khatedari rights could not accrue in Oran and Rasta land. Consequently, the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed by allowing the appeal. 6. Having gone through the judgments impugned, and having heard learned counsel for the parties, in my view, the finding recorded by the learned Board of Revenue about the plaintiff having failed to prove to be in possession since 2011, is a pure finding of fact, and even if the receipt produced under 0. 41 Rule 27 is taken on the face value, still that does not establish the plaintiffs having acquired Khatedari rights under Section 15 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. It is significant to note that it is not the plaintiffs case, that he was continuing in old ancestral possession of the land as a tenant from the then Jagirdar, rather he came with a specific case of having been inducted in Samvat 2011. Obviously, he has to positively prove it as a fact by leading cogent, and reliable evidence which he has failed. 7. In such circumstances, I do not find any error in the impugned order, so as to require any interference in my writ jurisdiction. 8. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. The parties shall bear their own costs.