Banwari Lal Adopted Son Of Shri ... vs Poornanand Son Of Shri Gangadhar
2022 Latest Caselaw 6251 Raj/2

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

              S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12721/2022

Banwari Lal Adopted Son Of Shri Hanuman, Aged About 74
Years, Resident Of Village And Tehsil Khood Dataramgarh,
District Sikar (Raj.)
                                                     ----/Defendant/Petitioner
                                    Versus
1.     Poornanand Son Of Shri Gangadhar, Resident Of Village
       Khood, Tehsil Dataramgarh, District Sikar (Raj.)
                                                     ........Plaintiff/Respondent

2. Tehsildar, Tehsil Dataramgarh, District Sikar (Raj.)

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prahlad Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manish K Sharma with Mr. Sagar Sharma

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

Order

19/09/2022

This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India is filed by the petitioner/appellant/defendant assailing the

legality and validity of the judgment dated 04.07.2022 passed by

the Board of Revenue Rajasthan, Ajmer (for brevity, "BoR")

dismissing the Appeal No.382/2008 preferred against the

judgment and decree dated 16.10.2007 passed by the Revenue

Appellate Authority, Sikar in Appeal No.94/2004 whereby, the

appeal preferred by the respondent/plaintiff against the judgment

and decree dated 23.03.2004 passed by the Assistant Collector,

Sikar in Suit No.345/2002 dismissing the suit filed by the

respondent for declaration and correction in revenue record, was

allowed.

(2 of 3) [CW-12721/2022]

The relevant facts in brief are that Smt. Saraswati Devi, wife

of Late Hanuman, predecessor in interest of the petitioner, filed a

suit for declaration and correction of entries in the revenue record

claiming her husband to be Khatedar of the subject land. The suit

came to be dismissed by the learned trial Court vide its judgment

and decree dated 23.03.2004 which was successfully challenged

by the respondent-defendant by way of an Appeal No.94/2004

which came to be allowed by the Revenue Appellate Authority,

Sikar vide its judgment and decree dated 16.10.2007. The

petitioner/defendant preferred a second appeal against the

judgment and decree dated 16.10.2007 which has been dismissed

by the BoR vide its judgment and decree dated 04.07.2022,

impugned herein.

Only contention advanced by the learned counsel for the

petitioner assailing the judgment dated 04.07.2022 is that the

BoR failed to appreciate that after allowing the application filed by

the respondent under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, the Revenue

Appellate Authority did not follow the procedure prescribed under

Order 41 Rule 28 CPC. He, therefore, prayed that the writ petition

be allowed, the judgment and decree dated 04.07.2022 passed by

the BoR be quashed and set aside and the judgment and decree

dated 23.03.2004 be restored.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff

submitted that by way of an application under Order 41 Rule 27

CPC filed before the First Appellate Authority, he has sought to

place on record copies of the khasra girdawari, which were taken

on record. He submits that since, no objection was raised by the

petitioner-defendant to the genuineness of the khasra girdawari,

the procedure prescribed under Order 41 Rule 28 CPC was not

(3 of 3) [CW-12721/2022]

required to be followed. He, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the

writ petition.

Heard. Considered.

Although, the petitioner has not placed on record along with

the memo of the writ petition, a copy of the application filed by

the respondent under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC; but, from the

judgment of the Revenue Appellate Authority, it is reflected that

copies of the khasra girdawari were sought to be placed on record

along with the application, which was allowed by the Appellate

Authority. The order dated 16.10.2007 does not reflect any

objection by the petitioner-respondent to the genuineness of the

khasra girdawari which, otherwise also, being part of the public

record, was beyond doubt. Even otherwise also, a perusal of the

judgment dated 04.07.2022 passed by the BoR relates that only

objection taken therein was that the petitioner was not afforded

an opportunity to lead evidence in rebuttal and no such objection

was taken that the procedure prescribed under Order 41 Rule 28

CPC was not followed once, the application filed by the plaintiff

under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC was allowed.

In view thereof, this Court finds no justification for interfering

with the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the revenue

Courts under its limited supervisory jurisdiction vide Article 227 of

the Constitution of India.

Resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed being devoid of

merit.

(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J

Sudha/77

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)