LAWS(SC)-1976-3-10

KISHORI LAL Vs. BIRDHI LAL

Decided On March 10, 1976
KISHORI LAL Appellant
V/S
BIRDHI LAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment dated March 10, 1975 of the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur passed in Civil Writ Petition No. 384 of 1968.

(2.) The fact leading to this appeal are:On July 1, 1961, Kishori Lal, the appellant herein, brought a suit in the court of the Assistant Collector. Baran, against Birdhi Lal, respondent No. 1, for possession of land comprised in khasra Nos. 513, 669 and 678 situate in village Balakhera of Anta Tehsil of Kota District under Sections 180 and 183 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). By his judgment dated December 24, 1962, the Assistant Collector dismissed the suit. The appellant thereupon preferred an appeal to the Revenue Appellate Authority who allowed the same by its judgment dated November 9, 1963, and reversing the judgment of the Assistant collector decreed the suit holding that Birdhi Lal was a trespasser. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Revenue Appellate Authority, Birdhi Lal took the matter in further appeal to the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, but remained unsuccessful as the members of the Board affirmed the view taken by Revenue Appellate Authority. Dissatisfied with the decisions of the Revenue Appellate Authority. Dissatisfied with the decisions of the Revenue Appellate Authority and the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Birdhi Lal approached the High Court of Rajasthan by means of a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The High Court by its aforesaid judgment and order dated March 10, 1975, allowed the petition and held that Birdhi Lal being a tenant within the meaning of Section 5 (43) of the Act and not a trespasser as conceived by Section 5 (44) of the Act, was not liable to be ejected from the land. Dissatisfied with this judgment, Kishori Lal has come up to this Court.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant has, while supporting the appeal, vehemently tried to press upon us that as the High Court has exercised appellate jurisdiction and substituted its own opinion for the opinion of the Revenue authorities contrary to the well-established principles of law, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. Elaborating his submission, the learned counsel has submitted that since both the Revenue Appellate Authority and the Board of Revenue had on currently held that Birdhi Lal was a trespasser and there was no error apparent on the face of the record, the High Court was not justified in interfering with the aforesaid decisions of the Revenue Appellate Authority and the Board of Revenue. The contention advanced on behalf of the appellant is, in our opinion, wholly untenable. The expression 'trespasser' is defined in Section 5 (44) of the Act as follows:-