Khim Singh vs The State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 12619 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6313/2020

1. Khim Singh S/o Sohan Singh, Aged About 70 Years, By Caste Rajput, Resident Of Village Dakatara, Tehsil Jalore District Jalore (Raj.).

2. Koliya (Deceased, S/o Hatta Bhil By Caste Bhil, Thorugh His Legal Representative

3. Sawaliya S/o Koliya Bhil, Aged About 25 Years, By Caste Bhil, Resident Of Village Dakatara, Tehsil Jalore District Jalore (Raj.).

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan through Tehsildar Jalore.

2. Tehsildar, Jalore

3. Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Madgaanv, Tehsil Jalore, District Jalore.

                                                                ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)         :    Mr. B.S. Sandhu



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

                          Judgment / Order

12/08/2021

This writ petition has been preferred on behalf of the

petitioners being aggrieved with the order dated

18.9.2019 passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer

(2 of 7) [CW-6313/2020]

whereby, the second appeal of the petitioners has been

dismissed.

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners have

filed a revenue suit under Section 88 and 188 of the

Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act of 1955')

in the court of the Assistant Collector, Jalore (for short

'the trial court') seeking relief that the petitioners be

declared as Khatedars of the lands of Khasra No.234, ad-

measuring 53 bigha 10 biswa, Khasra No.235, ad-

measuring 3 bigha 10 biswa and Khasra No.236 ad-

measuring 55 bigha 10 biswa of village Dakatara, Distt.

Jalore. The case of the petitioners before the trial court

was that the above referred land was Jagir land of

Jagirdar Bhopal Singh and the petitioners' fathers were

sub-tenants of the said Jagirdar and they were in

cultivatory possession of the said land and after death of

petitioners' fathers, the petitioners are in continuous

possession of the land in question. However, in the year

1979, when the petitioners came to know that the said

land has been recorded as Gochar Land in the revenue

records, they served a notice under Section 80 CPC to

the respondents and when no reply was received, the

petitioners preferred a suit with a prayer that a direction

(3 of 7) [CW-6313/2020]

may be issued to declare them as Khatedars of the above

land.

The trial court has framed as many as three issues

and after taking into consideration the evidence adduced

by the petitioners has dismissed the said suit by

judgment and order dated 23.9.1994. The petitioners,

being aggrieved with the same, have preferred an appeal

before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Sirohi (for short

'the RAA'), which has remanded the matter to the trial

court with a direction to frame an additional issue

regarding sub-tenancy of the petitioners and decide the

suit afresh. Pursuant to that, the trial court has framed

additional issue to the effect that whether the petitioners'

fathers were the sub-tenants of Jagirdar Bhopal Singh

and with the enactment of the Act of 1955, they became

the khatedars of the said land. The petitioners have

produced as many as three witnesses in support of their

claim that their fathers were sub-tenants of Jagirdar

Bhopal Singh and they were in cultivatory possession of

the land in question and with the enactment of the Act of

1955, they became the Khatedars of the said land.

The trial court after analyzing the evidence available

on record has come to the conclusion that from the

Girdawari produced by the petitioners in support of their

(4 of 7) [CW-6313/2020]

claim, it is apparent that in the samvat year 2012, when

the Act of 1955 came into force, petitioners' fathers were

not recorded as cultivators of the land in question and, as

such, their claim to be declared them as Khatedars of the

land in question cannot be accepted.

Being aggrieved with the order 6.1.1999 passed by

the Sub Divisional Officer, Jalore, the petitioners have

preferred an appeal before the RAA, and the RAA also

after analyzing the material available on record has

dismissed the said appeal. The RAA has observed that

though, in the Girdawaris pertaining to the samvat years

2008 to 2011 and 2013 to 2015, the land in question is

recorded as Jagirdari land and the petitioners' fathers

were shown as cultivators in the Girdawari, but in the

samvat year 2012, they were not shown as cultivators.

It is also observed that petitioners' fathers were in

possession of the said land only for five years and the

said possession was not continuous. It is also observed

by the RAA that the land in question is recorded as

Gochar land in the year 1963 thereafter the revenue

records were altered and land in question was handed

over to the Gram Panchayat and the petitioners have not

challenged the said proceedings and have filed the suit

only in the year 1979. It is also observed that the

(5 of 7) [CW-6313/2020]

petitioners have also not raised any objection during the

settlement proceedings. It is further observed that the

land in question is recorded as Gochar land and for a very

short time, the petitioners' fathers were shown as

cultivators of the said land. The RAA, thus, concluded

that only on the basis of possession of the petitioners'

fathers over the land in question for five years, the

petitioners are not entitled to be declared as Khadedars

of the same.

Being aggrieved with the judgment dated 6.3.2002

passed by the RAA, the petitioners have preferred second

appeal, which has been dismissed by the Board of

Revenue, Ajmer.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted

that the Board of Revenue, Ajmer in a cursory manner

has dismissed the second appeal of the petitioners. It is

argued that the Board of Revenue has failed to discuss

the evidence so also the material available on record and

in just few lines has dismissed the appeal without

commenting on merits of the case. It is, thus, submitted

that in such circumstances, it is a fit case, wherein the

matter may be remanded to the Board of Revenue for

fresh adjudication of the second appeal filed by the

petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also

(6 of 7) [CW-6313/2020]

attempted to challenge the findings of the SDO as well as

the Revenue Appellate Authority and submitted that both

the authorities below have not taken into consideration

the evidence as well as the material available on record

in right perspective.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and

perused the material available on record.

True it is that the Board of Revenue is required to

pass a reasoned order while dismissing the appeal

preferred on behalf of the petitioners. In the present

case, the Board of Revenue has not even discussed the

evidence and the material available on record and has

simply observed that after careful consideration of all the

material available before us, we find no reason to

interfere with the concurrent orders of lower court.

Be that as it may, the fact remains that in the

samvat year 2012, when the Act of 1955 came into force,

the petitioners' father were not in cultivatory possession

of the land in question and in such circumstances, I do

not find any illegality in the findings recorded by the trial

court as well as the RAA that as the petitioners' fathers

were not the cultivators of the land in samvat year 2012,

the Khatedari rights cannot be said to be accrued to the

petitioners.

(7 of 7) [CW-6313/2020]

In view of the above discussion, I do not find any

case for interference in this writ petition and the same is

dismissed as such.

Stay petition is also dismissed.

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J

41-msrathore/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)