Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 803 (RAJ)

Laxman v. Board of Revenue, Ajmer

2008-03-14

N.K.JAIN

body2008
Honble JAIN, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Plaintiff-respondents filed a suit for declaration as well as correction of entry in the revenue record for Samvat Year 2020. The petitioners also filed separate suit for declaration and injunction under Sections 88 and 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act on the ground that they were in possession of the disputed land in the Samvat Year 2012 (Corresponding Year 1955) when the Rajasthan Tenancy Act came into force. 3. The trial Court dismissed the suit of the present petitioners and decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondents. Thereafter the present petitioners preferred an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, which was dismissed and the second appeal preferred by the petitioners was also dismissed vide impugned order dated 22.08.2000 (Annexure-4) of the Revenue Board. The said order of the Revenue Board passed in the year 2000 has been challenged by the petitioners in this writ petition, which was filed after a delay of more than four years i.e. on 25.10.2004. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were in possession of the disputed land in the Samvat Year 2012 onwards, therefore, the Courts below committed an illegality in dismissing their suit and decreeing the suit of the opposite-party, therefore, the orders passed by the Courts below are liable to be set-aside. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents contended that the crucial year in the present case was Samvat Year 2012 i.e. the year 1955 when the Rajasthan Tenancy Act came into force and admittedly the name of respondent was mentioned in the jamabandi entry of Samvat Year 2012 as khatedar or as gair-mourusi. He further contended that all the three Courts have recorded a concurrent finding of fact about entry of respondent in the revenue record in Samvat Year 2012. He also contended that all the three Courts have recorded a concurrent finding of fact regarding possession of the respondents over the disputed land, which cannot/should not be interfered with by this Court while exercising extra-ordinary powers conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution, therefore, he prayed that the present writ petition may be dismissed. 6. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and also examined the impugned orders passed by the Courts below and other documents annexed with the writ petition. 7. 6. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and also examined the impugned orders passed by the Courts below and other documents annexed with the writ petition. 7. The Courts below have recorded a finding that the names of respondents were mentioned in jamabandi entry of Samvat Year 2012 when the Rajasthan Tenancy Act came into force and by virtue of Section 15 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, they acquired the status of tenant in respect of the disputed land. The Courts below have also recorded a concurrent finding of fact regarding possession of the respondents over the disputed land. These are the questions of facts and there is concurrent finding of fact in this regard, which cannot be interfered with by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. 8. There is no illegality or factual error in the orders passed by the Courts below. 9. There is no force in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.