Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 192 (RAJ)

Thakur Singh v. Board of Revenue Rajasthan, Ajmer

2015-01-21

PRAKASH GUPTA, SUNIL AMBWANI

body2015
JUDGMENT : 1. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants. 2. This Special Appeal arises out of the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 7.2.2014, by which he has confirmed the orders passed by the revenue authorities, which consistently held, that the Sanadrelied upon by the appellant for allotment of the land in the name of Jassu Singh, his adoptive father, was a highly doubtful document. 3. The suit filed by the appellant for rectification, injunction and declaration of an entry in Jamabandiwas dismissed. The appeal was also dismissed by the Revenue Appellate Authority. The revision filed against the same also received the same fate, against which, the appellant filed the writ petition, submitting that the settlement was not hit by Section 42, as the amendment came in the year 1964. The date of settlement was however, not indicated, showing whether the name of Jassu Singh was entered prior to the year 1964, or subsequently. Learned Single Judge relied upon the concurrent findings of the courts below, which could not be upset in the writ petition, and maintained the finding that the appellant could not get any right in pursuance to the alleged Sanad, unsettling the rights of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes persons, who were recorded to be in cultivatory possession of the land, prior to the issuance of the alleged Sanad. 4. In order to examine the arguments raised by learned counsel appearing for the appellants that Jassu Singh was the person, who had been allotted the land, declared as evacuee property, and was acquired by the Central Government, we have perused the records of the year 1955, and find that in the 'Allotment Form Araji', the name of Shri Lakhu Singh has been entered in column No.4. In column No.4, name of Jassu Singh S/o Jaimal Singh Sikh Lavana Sakin Sakin Tarusingh Tehsil Hala, District Hyderabad Sindh has been recorded. In column No.13, it is recorded that Jassu Singh alongwith his wife had left the village for Ganganagar. 5. We are unable to appreciate as to how the petitioner had acquired any right from Jassu Singh, when his permanent address was recorded as Tehsil Hala, District Hyderabad Sindh, and in the remarks column, it is mentioned that he alongwith his wife had left for Ganganagar. 6. 5. We are unable to appreciate as to how the petitioner had acquired any right from Jassu Singh, when his permanent address was recorded as Tehsil Hala, District Hyderabad Sindh, and in the remarks column, it is mentioned that he alongwith his wife had left for Ganganagar. 6. The revenue courts have consistently held that the appellant cannot claim any right over the land in khasra No.320 area 17 biswas, on the basis of Sanad, issued in the name of Jassu Singh in the year 1980, whereas the names of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes persons were recorded in cultivatory possession on the land. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any good ground to interfere with the judgment of learned Single Judge, confirming the consistent findings of fact recorded by the revenue courts. 8. The Special Appeal is dismissed.