Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 108 (RAJ)

Chenram v. Board of Revenue

2016-01-18

GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS

body2016
JUDGMENT : Gopal Krishan Vyas, J. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners for following relief: (i) quash the impugned judgment and decree dated 25/8/20154 (Annexure 8) passed by the learned Board of Revenue, Ajmer in Appeal Decree/TA/4896/2001/ Udaipur; and (ii) the judgment and decree dated 19/7/2001 (Annex.7) passed by the learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur may kindly be restored back; and (iii) the suit filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs seeking declaration of their Khatedari rights over 6 bighas suit land may be decreed; and (iv) any other appropriate relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit necessary in the fact and circumstances of the present case be granted in favour of the petitioners; and (v) cost of the Writ Petition be ordered to be awarded to the petitioners." 2. As per the facts of the case, the father of the petitioners nos. 1 to 6 Onkar Lal Dangi filed a revenue suit before the respondent no. 3 seeking declaration of Khatedari rights over 6 bighas of land situated in southern side of plot no. 1855 (40 bighas in all) in Hiran Magari Area, Udaipur. In the suit it was pleaded that the said land was granted by Maharaj Dwarkadish Kankroli upon consideration of Rs.75/- in Samwat 2012 since then he is in constant cultivatory possession of the land and same has been entered in the revenue records. 3. It is further submitted that the defendants purchased the rest of the land part of 6 bighas land but with malafide intention had got executed the mutation for entire 40 bighas of land, therefore civil suit was filed by him for declaring Khatedari of over 6 bighas of land which is given to late Sh. Onkar Lal Dangi by Maharaj Dwarkadish Kankroli for Rs.75/-. After filing the written statement vide order dated 21.10.1980 the learned trial court decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant, against which the defendant preferred appeal before the respondent no. 2 which was allowed vide judgment dated 22.3.1987 and order passed by the S.D.O, Girwa was set aside and matter was remanded to the said court for deciding fresh. 4. 2 which was allowed vide judgment dated 22.3.1987 and order passed by the S.D.O, Girwa was set aside and matter was remanded to the said court for deciding fresh. 4. After remand, the suit was dismissed by the learned trial court against which the present petitioners preferred an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur and the same was allowed vide judgment dated 19.7.2001 whereby the judgment and decree passed by the respondent no.3 dated 21.11.2000 was set aside and suit of the plaintiff was decreed on the ground of adverse possession. 5. Against above judgment passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur, an appeal was preferred before the learned Board of Revenue by the respondent no.4 and the Board of Revenue allowed the said appeal vide judgment dated 25.8.2015. In this writ petition the petitioners are challenging the validity of the judgment dated 25.8.2015 passed by the learned Board of Revenue. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Revenue Appellate Authority allowed the appeal filed by the appellants on the ground of adverse possession, but the learned Board of Revenue quashed and set aside the finding of adverse possession on the ground that suit was not filed upon the ground of adverse possession and held that Revenue Appellate Authority has committed a grave error while allowing the appeal on the ground of adverse possession in view of the judgment reported in 1981 RRD 549 and reported in 1985 RRD 648 in which it has been held that once permissive possession has been pleaded then no decree can be passed on the basis of adverse possession. It is also observed that in 2011 RRD 508 the Full Bench of the Board of Revenue held that no Khatedari rights can be awarded on the basis of adverse possession. The said proposition has further been reiterated by the Hon'ble Larger Bench of the Rajasthan High Court vide judgment dated 15.7.2015 I the case of Tara v. State of Rajasthan. 7. After perusing the finding given by the learned Board of Revenue and upon the fact that land in question was purchased by respondent no.4 by registered sale-deed dated 5.4.1962 and on same day possession was taken by the defendant no error has been committed by the learned Board of Revenue to set aside the judgment of the learned Revenue Appellate Authority-cum-Settlement Officer dated 19.7.2001. Therefore, the instant writ petition is hereby dismissed.