Skip to content


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

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in2009(3)WLN186
AppellantBhagirath
RespondentBoard of Revenue and ors.
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Excerpt:
.....facts, it is clear that the de 5. in view of the above reasons, if the board of revenue as well as the learned single judge was of the view that the plaintiff's suit deserves to be dismissed as on the date when the suit land was allotted to the defendant, it was recorded as siwai chak land, the board of revenue has not committed any illegality......judge was of the view that the plaintiff's suit deserves to be dismissed as on the date when the suit land was allotted to the defendant, it was recorded as siwai chak land, the board of revenue has not committed any illegality.6. so far as contention of learned counsel for the appellant that it is admitted case that kana ram and sultan singh were recorded as khatedar tenants and without any order passed by the competent authority, their names could not have been removed from the revenue record is concerned, suffice it to state that the facts under which the land has been recorded in the name of the government in the year 1963 (corresponding samwat year 2022), there is no material on the record that how the land was recorded as siwai chak but yet that recording of the land as.....
Judgment:

Prakash Tatia, J.

1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2. The plaintiff/appellant Bhagirath is aggrieved against the judgment dt. 24.05.1995 passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer allowing the second appeal preferred by defendant/respondent Bana Ram. The Board of Revenue dismissed the suit of the plaintiff filed for declaration of khatedari rights of the plaintiff and eviction of the defendant.

3. We perused the reasons given by the Courts below and we need not to refer the facts in detail as the learned Single Judge and the Board of Revenue, both were of the view that there is no merit in the suit of the plaintiff. The Board of Revenue has considered various aspects and some of the facts which are relevant for the purpose of deciding this appeal are that as per the appellant himself, the defendant trespassed over the land in question in Samwat year 2017 (corresponding year 1960); the land was declared Siwai Chak i.e. Government land in Samwat Year 2020 (corresponding year 1963); the land was allotted to the defendant by allotment order dt. 31.07.1965 (corresponding Samwat year 2022) and the land was mutated in the name of defendant on 10.08.1967 (corresponding Samwat year 2024). The original khatedar tenants Sultan Singh and Kana Ram did not challenge any of the action of the State Government either of recording the land as Government land in the year 1963 nor allotting the land in favour of the defendant in the year 1965 nor the mutation order passed in favour of the defendant in the year 1967. However, the plaintiff for the reasons best known to him, purchased this property in the year 1968 and admittedly, the original khatedars could not have delivered the possession of the property to the purchaser as it is admitted case of the plaintiff in the plaint itself that the original khatedar tenant was not in possession since Samwat year 2017 (corresponding year 1960). After purchasing the property, as per the purchaser/plaintiff, he filed the suit in the year 1969.

4. In view of the above facts, it is clear that the defendant was in possession of the property since 1964 and thereafter, till the suit was filed and before that, the land was already recorded in the name of the Government and was allotted to the defendant vide order dt. 31.07.1965 and mutated in the name of the defendant vide order dt. 10.08.1967 and none of these orders were ever challenged by the original khatedar tenants.

5. In view of the above reasons, if the Board of Revenue as well as the learned Single Judge was of the view that the plaintiff's suit deserves to be dismissed as on the date when the suit land was allotted to the defendant, it was recorded as Siwai Chak land, the Board of Revenue has not committed any illegality.

6. So far as contention of learned Counsel for the appellant that it is admitted case that Kana Ram and Sultan Singh were recorded as khatedar tenants and without any order passed by the competent authority, their names could not have been removed from the revenue record is concerned, suffice it to state that the facts under which the land has been recorded in the name of the Government in the year 1963 (corresponding Samwat year 2022), there is no material on the record that how the land was recorded as Siwai Chak but yet that recording of the land as Government land has not been challenged by the khatedar tenants since 1963 till they sold the land in the year 1968 for long five years inspite of the fact that the lawful authorities passed the allotment order which is also not under challenged.

7. In view of the above, this special appeal, having no merits, is hereby dismissed.


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