Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1619 (RAJ)

Gokal v. Board of Revenue

2011-08-05

GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS

body2011
Hon'ble VYAS, J.—In this writ petition, the petitioners are challenging the judgment dated 16.10.2000 (Annexure-5) passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer and the judgment dated 20.4.2011 (Annexure -7) passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer in Revision Petition No. 5202/2002 of District Churu. 2. As per facts of the case, the petitioner No. 1 Gokal filed a suit before the Assistant Collector, Churu under Section 88 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act against the respondents No. 3 and 4. After issuing notice by the Assistant Collector, Churu when petitioners No. 1 and 2 did not appear before the Court, then ex-parte proceedings were initiated against them on 3.6.1989. The Assistant Collector, Churu on the basis of pleadings and evidence decreed the suit of the petitioner No. 1 Gokal vide judgment dated 28.6.1991, in which, it was declared that petitioner No. 1 and defendants No. 1 and 2 are hereby declared entitled for 1/3rd share each of them. Further, it is held that the name of defendants No.3 and 5 may be deleted from the revenue record entered in Khasra No. 130 and Khara Nos. 163 and 162 situated in Tehsil Taranagar. The said judgment was delivered in absence of respondent No.2 Chetan, therefore, respondent No. 2 Chetan preferred an appeal against the said judgment and the said appeal was finally decided by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner vide judgment dated 19.3.1996, whereby, the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner set aside the judgment of Assistant Collector, Churu dated 28.6.1991. 3. Against the said judgment an appeal was preferred by the petitioners before the Board of Revenue, Ajmer but the same was also dismissed vide judgment dated 16.10.2000, whereby, the judgment of Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner dated 19.3.1996 was upheld. Thereafter, against the said judgment a revision petition was filed by the petitioners before the Board of Revenue that too was dismissed on 20.4.2011. 4. I have perused all the judgments. 5. In my opinion, the finding given by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner as well as twice by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer in appeal and revision does not required any interference because admittedly the land in question was belonging to late Lichhman, who was father of petitioners and non-petitioners, in which, all the legal representatives are having their share. 6. In my opinion, the finding given by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner as well as twice by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer in appeal and revision does not required any interference because admittedly the land in question was belonging to late Lichhman, who was father of petitioners and non-petitioners, in which, all the legal representatives are having their share. 6. In this view of the matter, I see no reason to interfere in the concurrent finding of Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner and Board of Revenue, Ajmer. Hence, this writ petition is hereby dismissed.