Skip to content


Beeramdas Vs. Board of Revenue, Rajasthan - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberWrit Petn. No. 113 of 1951
Judge
Reported inAIR1954Raj40
ActsTenancy Law; Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance, 1949 - Sections 7; Constitution of India - Article 226
AppellantBeeramdas
RespondentBoard of Revenue, Rajasthan
Advocates: S.N. Saxena, Adv.
DispositionApplication dismissed
Excerpt:
- .....again allowed the application. a revision application was filed against this order and the revenue board by its judgment dated 20-8-1951, upheld the order of reinstatement made by the sub-divisional officer. the applicant beeramdas now comes to this court under article 226 of the constitution of india. 2. we have heared the learned counsel for theapplicant. he has not been able to show that theboard of revenue either acted beyond jurisdictionor exceeded its jurisdiction. he has alsonot been able to point out that there hasbeen any patent illegality in the judgment. the revenue board has held on evidenceproduced that daluram was in occupation of theproperty in dispute on 1-4-1948 and that he wasdispossessed thereafter. section 7, rajasthantenant's protection ordinance, lays down.....
Judgment:

Sharma, J.

1. This is an application by Beeramdas under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a writ in the nature of Mandamus or certiorari or any other writ or direction. It arises under the following circumstances. The opposite party No. 2, Daluram, made an application under Section 7, Rajasthan Tenant's Protection Ordinance, for his reinstatement over certain agricultural land. The applicant opposed the application put the Sub-divisional Officer, Junnjhunu, allowed the application and ordered the reinstatement of Daluram. Beeramdas went in revision to the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan. This revision application was allowed and further enquiry was ordered. The Sub-Divisional Officer, after some additional enquiry, again allowed the application. A revision application was filed against this order and the Revenue Board by its judgment dated 20-8-1951, upheld the order of reinstatement made by the Sub-Divisional Officer. The applicant Beeramdas now comes to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

2. We have heared the learned Counsel for theapplicant. He has not been able to show that theBoard of Revenue either acted beyond jurisdictionor exceeded its jurisdiction. He has alsonot been able to point out that there hasbeen any patent illegality in the judgment. The Revenue Board has held on evidenceproduced that Daluram was in occupation of theproperty in dispute on 1-4-1948 and that he wasdispossessed thereafter. Section 7, RajasthanTenant's Protection Ordinance, lays down that ifa tenant is in occupation of some land on 1-4-1948,but has been dispossessed thereafter, he will be entitled to reinstatement if he makes an applicationwithin three months from the date of dispossession or from, the date of coming intoforce of Ordinance, whichever is later. In the present case, the Revenue Board has taken the twoimportant conditions required by Section 7, into consideration and the judgment is based on evidence.Under Article 226, this court cannot exercise the powers of an appellate court & it is not for it to saywhether the evidence was sufficient for a findingon these two points in favour of the tenant or not.The application has no force and it is dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //