Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 721 (RAJ)

Banwari Lal v. Board of Revenue

2008-03-07

MOHAMMAD RAFIQ

body2008
Honble RAFIQ, J.—These two writ petitions are directed against the judgment & order dated 6.9.2000 passed by the Board of Revenue whereby, the revision petitions filed by the petitioner were dismissed and the order of the revenue appellate authority dated 13.11.1996 was upheld. The revenue appellate authority also similarly dismissed two appeals filed by the petitioner affirming the order passed by the S.D.O. dated 6.3.1996 by which Tehsildar Chirawa was appointed Receiver in regard to the property of the disputed land under the provisions of Section 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that even the respondents have not disputed that petitioner has remained in possession of the part of the land and on consideration of that fact, operation of the impugned order was stayed by this Court. It is argued that the Courts below have not correctly applied the principles of law regarding appointment of Receiver under the provisions of Section 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. It was argued that till decision in the main suit, possession of the petitioner may not be interfered with. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the writ petition and has argued that the Courts below have correctly decided the matter against the petitioner. The dispute is about land admeasuring 13 bighas 6 biswa bearing Khasra No.1282 measure 1.29 hectare and 1283 measuring 2.08 hectares. Respondents are having possession over the disputed land for last more than 50 years. It is only very small part of that land which was encroached upon by the petitioner and respondents had to file revenue suit. All the Courts below have concurrently held that the land in the khatedari of the respondents mutate and has correctly been in their name. This being the finding of fact, no case is made out for interference of this Court. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order, I find that the learned S.D.O. passed a comprehensive order for appointment of Receiver. The S.D.O. in his order has recorded that the major portion of the land was still in possession of the respondents and that the petitioner was trying to interfere in its use by the respondents. The S.D.O. therefore pending decision of the suit directed appointment of the Receiver. The S.D.O. in his order has recorded that the major portion of the land was still in possession of the respondents and that the petitioner was trying to interfere in its use by the respondents. The S.D.O. therefore pending decision of the suit directed appointment of the Receiver. A bare perusal of the order goes to show that appointment of Receiver has been made on thorough consideration. The learned Board of Revenue and the revenue appellate authority did not interfere with the order of the S.D.O., though, both the authorities considered the case in detail. All the Courts have thus concurrently found status of the petitioner as that of a trespasser. Encroachment over the land of the respondents, who belong to the schedule caste category, cannot be a basis for perpetuation of petitioner’s possession even if he is having possession over the same on part of the land. The Courts below, in my view, have not committed any illegality and error of law. 5. I do not find any merit in this petition so as to interfere with the orders of the Courts below. 6. Both the writ petitions are accordingly dismissed.