Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 156 (RAJ)

Hanuman v. Dhanna Ram

2017-01-12

SANGEET LODHA

body2017
JUDGMENT Sangeet Lodha, J. This petition is directed against judgment dated 30.8.16 of the Board of Revenue Rajasthan, whereby the second appeal preferred by the petitioners under Section 224 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short "the Act"), against the judgment and decree dated 23.2.08 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority (RAA), Bikaner, dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioners against the judgment and decree dated 20.6.06 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (SDO), Lunkaransar in Revenue Suit No.58/12, stands dismissed. 2. The petitioners filed a suit under Section 88 & 188 of the Act, seeking declaration of khatedari rights and permanent injunction against the first and second respondent in respect of the land measuring 20 bighas comprising khasra no.865/2762 situated at village Rohi Jetpur, Tehsil Lunkaransar, District Bikaner. The petitioners claim was that the land in question was allotted in their favour in Samvat 2028 and after handing over the possession of the land to the petitioners, the modification was made in the map. According to the plaintiff, later the modification made was changed without order of any competent authority. 3. The suit was contested by the first respondent by filing a written statement thereto. The trial court framed the issues and parties led their evidence. At the same time, the first respondent filed a counter claim seeking injunction against the petitioners herein not to interfere with his possession over 50 bighas land comprising khasra no.865/2206. 4. After due consideration, the SDO arrived at the finding that the allotment made in favour of the first respondent was prior to the allotment alleged to have been made in favour of the petitioners and therefore, the change in modification made in favour of the petitioners in the red ink on the basis of the report of Girdawar Halka and Patwar Halka was absolutely justified. Accordingly, the suit preferred by the petitioners was dismissed and the counter claim preferred by the first respondent was decreed. 5. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the SDO as aforesaid, the petitioners preferred appeal before RAA, Bikaner, which stood dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 23.2.08. The second appeal preferred by the petitioners before the Board of Revenue also stands dismissed by the impugned judgment. Hence, this petition. 6. 5. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the SDO as aforesaid, the petitioners preferred appeal before RAA, Bikaner, which stood dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 23.2.08. The second appeal preferred by the petitioners before the Board of Revenue also stands dismissed by the impugned judgment. Hence, this petition. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the Board of Revenue has seriously erred in affirming the judgment and decree passed by the RAA ignoring documentary and oral evidence available on record. Learned counsel submitted that it has come on record that the first respondent was in possession of 37 bighas of the land and thus, the cultivatory possession of the petitioners over 20 bighas land cannot be disputed. Learned counsel submitted that the modification in the map made could not have been altered without there being an order of competent authority so as to reduce the land in possession of the petitioners from 20 bighas to 7 bighas. 7. It is to be noticed that SDO, RAA and Board of Revenue have concurrently found that the land was allotted in favour of the first respondent prior to the petitioners in the year 1972 and the modification effected in the map was altered after verification in the year 1990. The Board found that the map submitted alongwith the passbook does not bear signature of the competent authority and therefore, the same cannot be given any credence. All the three courts have concurrently found that the modification in the map wrongly made was altered in the year 1990 and accordingly, in the modified map the land of the first respondent in khasra no.865/2006 was entered as 50 bighas. In the considered opinion of this court, the concurrent findings arrived at by the trial court and first appellate court cannot be said to be capricious and perverse and thus, the Board of Revenue has committed no error in declining to interfere with the same. 8. No case for interference by this court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is made out. 9. The writ petition is therefore, dismissed in limine.