Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1551 (RAJ)

Gyan Chand v. Sultan Singh

2011-08-01

GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner filed a revenue suit under Section 92 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act against the respondents in the Court of Addl. District Collector, Anoopgarh. The Addl. District Collector decided the suit vide. judgment dated 26.3.1993, whereby, issues No. 1 and 2 were decided in favour of the petitioner and issue No. 3 was decided against the respondents, whereby, the respondent-defendants were restrained from interfering in the possession and cultivation of the petitioner upon the land in dispute. 2. Against the above judgment, appeal was filed before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Sriganganagar and learned RAA allowed the appeal vide judgment dated 10.3.2010 and set aside judgment of the Addl. Collector dated 6.6.1993 and remanded the.case to the Sub Divisional Officer, Anoopgarh for fresh decision after hearing all the legal heirs of Ram Narain in the suit. Learned RAA gave the aforesaid finding for the reason that petitioner Gyan Chand claimed his right on the basis. of Will said to have been executed in his favour by his father Ram Narain. The Revenue Appellate Authority observed in the appellate judgment that according to Section 39 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1954 (sic 1955), Will in relation to gair-khatedari land cannot be executed. 3. Judgment rendered by the learned Revenue Appellate Authority was further challenged by way of filing appeal before the Board of Revenue but the Board of Revenue, vide judgment dated 7.9.2010, upheld the finding given by the Revenue Appellate Authority and held that the matter may be decided afresh after providing opportunity of hearing to all the legal heirs Ram Narain. The Board of Revenue observed that as per Section 39 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act no Will can be made in,respect of gair-khatedari land. In my opinion, the finding given by the Revenue Appellate Authority as well as Board of Revenue does not require any interference because the same is in consonance with law. In this view of the matter, no case is made out for interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.Hence, this writ petition is dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******