Skip to content


Budha Vs. Board of Revenue and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 953 of 1968
Judge
Reported in1976WLN(UC)483
AppellantBudha
RespondentBoard of Revenue and ors.
DispositionPetition dismissed
Excerpt:
.....tenancy act, 1955 - section 224--whether petitioner was a trespasser is a question of fact--revenue board rightly did not interfere with finding of lower court.;the question whether or not the petitioner was a trespasser was a question of fact and the board of revenue rightly held that it cannot interfere with the concurrent finding reached by the sub-divisional officer and the revenue appellate authority holding him to be a trespasser. the hoard of revenue rightly observed that it could not, under section 224 of the rajasthan tenancy act, 1955, interfere on a question of fact with the decree of revenue appellate authority, which was a decree of affirmance.;(b) rajasthan tenancy act, 1955 - section 183--trespasser--petitioner was not a khatedar tenant--decision directing ejectment..........of certiorari to quash an order of the board of revenue 24-10-1968 affirming the decision of the revenue appellate authority and the sub divisional officer holding him to be a trespasser and directing his ejectment under section 183 of the rajasthan tenancy act, 1955. the material facts are these.2. respondent no. 4 bodan, who is the ex-biswedar of village jogwad, brought this suit under section 183 of the rajasthan tenancy act, 1955, for the ejectment of the petitioner alleging him to be a trespasser. it appears that be had cultivated the lands in question in partnership with the petitioner for samvat years 2012, 2013 and 2014. the petitioner brought a revenue suit no. 9/1958 in the court of the sub divisional officer, kishangarh, for a declaration of khatedari rights. that suit was.....
Judgment:

A.P. Sen, J.

1. This is a petition by one Budha under Article 226 of the Constitution for issue of a writ of certiorari to quash an order of the Board of Revenue 24-10-1968 affirming the decision of the Revenue Appellate Authority and the Sub divisional Officer holding him to be a trespasser and directing his ejectment under Section 183 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. The material facts are these.

2. Respondent No. 4 Bodan, who is the ex-Biswedar of village Jogwad, brought this suit under Section 183 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, for the ejectment of the petitioner alleging him to be a trespasser. It appears that be had cultivated the lands in question in partnership with the petitioner for Samvat years 2012, 2013 and 2014. The petitioner brought a revenue suit No. 9/1958 in the court of the Sub divisional Officer, Kishangarh, for a declaration of khatedari rights. That suit was dismissed by the Sub-divisional Officer by his order dated 31-3-1959 holding that be was not a tenant and therefore, could not acquire khatedari rights under Section 15 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. Thereafter, Bodan brought a second suit being Revenue Suit No. 2014/62 for correction of certain entries, in the court of Sub divisional Officer, Kishangarh. The suit was decreed by the Sub-divisional Officer but the decree was reversed in appeal by the Revenue Appellate Authority on the ground that such suit was not maintainable. Meanwhile, the petitioner having continued in possession over the lands, even after the expiry of Samvat 2014, Bodan brought the present suit for ejectment being Revenue Suit No. 6/1962, in the court of the Sub-divisional Officer Kishangarh treating the petitioner to be a trespasser. The suit was decreed by the Sub Divisional Officer by his judgment dated 4-12-1963 holding the petitioner to be a trespasser. That decree was affirmed in appeal by the Revenue Appellate Authority by its order dated 19-7-1965. Both the Sub divisional Officer as well as the Revenue Appellate Authority held that the finding in the suit No. 9/1958, brought by the petitioner to the effect that he was not a kbatedarl tenant operated as res judicata and that the petitioner after expiry of Samvat 2014 had no right to remain on the land and was nothing but a trespasser. The Board of Revenue has by this impugned order in second appeal declined to interfere with the orders passed by the courts below.

3. The order of Board of Revenue does not suffer from any infirmity. There is no error of jurisdiction. Nor is there any error apparent on the face of the record. The question whether or cot the petitioner was a trespasser was a question of fact and the Board of Revenue rightly held that it cannot be interfered with the concurrent finding reached by the Sub-divisional Officer and the Revenue Appellate Authority holding him to be a trespasser. The Board of Revenue rightly observed that it could not, under Section 224 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1956, interfere on a question of fact with the decree of Revenue Appellate Authority, which was a decree of affirmance. The Board was also right in its view that the finding in suit No. 9/1958 holding that the petitioner was not a khatedar tenant operated as res judicata. In view of the fact that the arrangement was not continued after Samvat 2014, the petitioner could not, but be a trespasser. The Board of Revenue has therefore, rightly affirmed the decision of the Revenue Authorities directing the ejectment of the petitioner under Section 183 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955.

4. In the result the writ petition fails and it is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.


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