Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 775 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Champa Lal

2016-05-27

ARUN BHANSALI

body2016
ORDER : Arun Bhansali, J. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner State on 21/5/2013 aggrieved against the judgment dated 20/1/1998 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Hanumangarh and judgment dated 12/1/2005 passed by the Revenue Board, Ajmer, whereby, the appeal filed by the respondent no.1 against the decree dated 11/2/1997 passed by the S.D.O., Nohar was reversed and suit filed by the respondent no.1 was decreed and second appeal filed by the State was dismissed as barred by limitation after rejecting the application for condonation of delay, respectively. 2. The respondent no.1 filed a suit under Section 88 and 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 ('the Act') inter alia with the averments that he was in cultivatory possession of the land comprised in khasra no. 78 ad measuring 28.10 bigha since Samvat Year 2007; the khasra number of the land was changed and part of khasra number was converted into khasra no.92 ad measuring 3.7 bigha but was entered as 'Araji Raj' (Government Land) and sought declaration regarding his ownership and injunction against the defendants from interfering in possession over the land in question. 3. The suit was resisted by the defendants and after the evidence was led by the parties, the S.D.O., Nohar came to the conclusion that the plaintiff failed to produce documentary evidence i.e. 'Khasra Parivartansheel' or any other authentic document and only oral evidence has been produced and consequently dismissed the suit. 4. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent no.1 filed an appeal under Section 223 of the Act. The Revenue Appellate Authority by its judgment dated 20/1/1998 came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had filed Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/5, which pertain to pre-settlement, wherein, plaintiff was in possession of land ad measuring 28.10 bigha in khasra no.78 and subsequently the land other than what was comprised in khasra no.92 ad measuring 3.07 bigha, was recorded in his name and from the document Ex.P/3, the same proves the case of the plaintiff. Witnesses, P.W.2 and P.W.3, have also supported the plaintiff's case and the State has neither produced any document in defence nor any witness was examined and merely because the petitioner was alleged as trespasser and 'khasra milan' was not produced, his rights cannot come to an end; it was incumbent on the State to show the difference in Ex.P/1 and Ex.P/3,which were the documents based on settlement and consequently reversed the judgment of S.D.O. and while accepting the appeal filed by the respondent no.1, he was declared as khatedar of the land. 5. After the judgment was passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority on 20/1/1998, the second appeal under Section 224 of the Act was filed on 30/3/1999 before the Board of Revenue. 6. The Board of Revenue by its judgment dated 12/1/2005 came to the conclusion that no reason was given in the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act indicating any justification for the delay in filing the appeal and consequently dismissed the application for condonation of delay and the appeal was also dismissed. 7. Thereafter, the present writ petition after passage of over 08 years was filed in the year 2013 before this Court and same was dismissed for not removing the defects pointed out by the office on 9/7/2014, which was later on restored on 27/1/2015. Where after, an affidavit was filed seeking to explain the delay in filing the writ petition. Submissions were made seeking to indicate that the writ petition was drafted in the year 2006 as per the record of Tehsildar, however, the then Government Counsel did not file the same and when in year 2014, an application filed by the plaintiff seeking execution of the decree was filed, the said aspect came to the notice and writ petition was filed thereafter. 8. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Revenue Appellate Authority committed an error in accepting the appeal filed by the respondent no.1, the S.D.O. had recorded cogent reasons for dismissal of the suit, which did not require any interference. Further the Board of Revenue committed an error in dismissing the appeal filed by the State and not condoning the delay in filing the appeal and, therefore, the orders impugned deserve to be quashed and set aside. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent no.1 supported the orders impugned. 10. Further the Board of Revenue committed an error in dismissing the appeal filed by the State and not condoning the delay in filing the appeal and, therefore, the orders impugned deserve to be quashed and set aside. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent no.1 supported the orders impugned. 10. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 11. Though the submissions made by the State for the delay in filing the writ petition are wholly baseless and do not invoke any confidence and are reflections of callous attitude in prosecuting the litigation on behalf of the State, the matter was examined on merits. 12. The S.D.O. in a cursory manner, on account of alleged non-production of 'Khasra Parivartansheel' and other documents, dismissed the suit filed by the respondent no.1, though the fact that respondent no.1 was having land ad measuring 28.10 bigha prior to settlement operations was not in dispute and post settlement the said land was recorded in his name and land ad measuring 03 bigha 07 biswa in khasra no. 92, which was in plaintiff's possession, was recorded as 'Araji Raj'. The Revenue Appellate Authority after proper discussion based on the documentary evidence, reversed the findings and came to the conclusion that the burden equally lay on the State to produce 'Khasra Parivartansheel' or 'Khasra Milan' to show that the plaintiff was in possession of the land equivalent to what he was in possession prior to settlement operations and consequently decreed the suit. 13. The State, as usual filed an appeal with delay of over one year and in the application filed for seeking condonation of delay, no cogent reasons were indicated and, therefore, the Board of Revenue rejected the said application. The subsequent delay in filing the present writ petition after 08 years, though a plea is taken that writ petition was filed/supposedly filed in the year 2006 itself, clearly indicates that despite dismissal of the appeal by the Board of Revenue on account of delay, the State did not learn lesson and continued with its callous attitude. 14. Be that as it may, having gone through the findings recorded by the Revenue Appellate Authority, it cannot be said that the same suffer from any perversity so as to require interference by this court. 14. Be that as it may, having gone through the findings recorded by the Revenue Appellate Authority, it cannot be said that the same suffer from any perversity so as to require interference by this court. Further, the dismissal of the application filed by the petitioner seeking condonation of delay by the Board of Revenue also appears to be justified in the circumstances of the case. In view of the above discussion, there is no substance in the writ petition, the same is, therefore, dismissed.