Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 936 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Pukhraj

2012-04-13

GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition has been filed by the State of Rajasthan through Tehsildar, Jodhpur with the prayer that the order dated 13.06.2011 (Annexure-3) passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer in Appeal No. T.A./198/2011 and the judgment dated 12.11.2008 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jodhpur in Appeal No. 33/2008 may be quashed and set aside and the judgment dated 11.02.2008 passed by the Sub- Divisional Officer, Jodhpur may be restored. 2. The brief facts of the case are that a suit was filed by the respondent-plaintiffs before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jodhpur for declaration and permanent injunction under Sections 88, 92-A and 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955; in which, it was submitted that respondent-plaintiffs were admitted as tenant of the land situated in Khasra No. 712 measuring 8.13 beghas prior to Samvat year 2012, therefore, they may be recorded as Khatedasrs in the revenue record for above land. 3. The Assistant Collector-cum-Sub Divisional Officer, Jodhpur dismissed the suit while framing four issues against which an appeal preferred by the plaintiff-respondents. 4. In the appeal, it was specifically pleaded that S.D.O. has decided the suit in a very casual manner just in 21/2 pages that too without considering the entire documentary evidence produced by the plaintiff-respondents. 5. The Revenue Appellate Authority, Jodhpur allowed the said appeal filed under Section 223 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955; whereby, after taking into consideration the entire revenue record produced by the plaintiff-respondents held that the judgment rendered by the S.D.O. deserves to be quashed and while quashing the judgment declared the plaintiff respondents as Khatedar of the land situated in village Chawkha in Khasra No. 712, Rakba 8 bigha 13 biswas and further passed a decree for permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff respondents. 6. Against the judgment of Revenue Appellate Authority, Jodhpur a second appeal was filed by the petitioner State of Rajasthan under Section 224 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 before the Board of Revenue, Ajmer. 7. The Board of Revenue, Ajmer after hearing the parties and considering entire evidence and the judgments reported in 1987 RRD 202 and 1992 RRD 114 dismissed the appeal filed by the State and held that there is sufficient evidence on record to prove the possession of the plaintiff respondents since 2008. 7. The Board of Revenue, Ajmer after hearing the parties and considering entire evidence and the judgments reported in 1987 RRD 202 and 1992 RRD 114 dismissed the appeal filed by the State and held that there is sufficient evidence on record to prove the possession of the plaintiff respondents since 2008. The Board of Revenue, Ajmer vide its judgment dated 13.06.2011 confirmed the judgment rendered by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jodhpur and dismissed the appeal. 8. In this writ petition, the counsel for petitioner argued that Revenue Appellate Authority, Jodhpur as well as Board of Revenue, Ajmer committed serious error while declaring respondents as Khatedars of the land in question because no sufficient evidence is produced on record before the S.D.O., therefore, the findings given by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jodhpur and Board of Revenue, Ajmer deserve to be quashed and set aside. 9. It is further argued that the judgment of Revenue Appellate Authority, Jodhpur and the judgment of Board of Revenue, Ajmer are an outcome of total misreading of the material evidence available on record, therefore, the findings given by both the courts below deserve to be quashed and set aside and this writ petition deserves to be allowed. 10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that no error has been committed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jodhpur as well as by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer while passing the judgments because a bare perusal of the judgment rendered by the Assistant Collector cum Sub Divisional Officer, Jodhpur dated 11.02.2008, it will reveal that such type of judgment cannot be treated to be a judgment in the eyes of law because all the documentary evidence produced b the plaintiff-respondents to prove the fact of possession were ignored by the S.D.O., but Revenue Appellate Authority, Jodhpur as well as Board of Revenue, Ajmer considered entire evidence in right prospects, therefore, both the judgments required to be maintained and this writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 11. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the judgment Annexure-1 rendered by the Assistant Collector cum Sub Divisional Officer, Jodhpur. 12. It is very strange that four issues were decided by the trial court in just 21/2 pages that too without considering the documentary evidence produced by the plaintiff-respondents. 11. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the judgment Annexure-1 rendered by the Assistant Collector cum Sub Divisional Officer, Jodhpur. 12. It is very strange that four issues were decided by the trial court in just 21/2 pages that too without considering the documentary evidence produced by the plaintiff-respondents. The Revenue Appellate Authority applied its mind towards the entire evidence produced by the petitioner on record and gave finding that as per documentary evidence produced on record, it is ostensibly clear that plaintiff-respondents proved their case with regard to their possession and for declaring them as Khatedars of the land in question situated in Khasra No. 712, Rakba 8 bigha 13 biswas. 13. In my opinion, the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jodhpur as well as Board of Revenue, Ajmer have rightly arrived at with the findings that there is ample evidence on record to accept the claim of plaintiff-respondents because they are in possession since Samvat year 2012, therefore, the plaintiff respondents are entitled for declaration of khatedari rights as well as for permanent injunction. 14. In this view of the matter, I am not inclined to interfere in this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.Hence, this writ petition is hereby dismissed.Writ petition dismissed. *******