BABU SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. This appeal has come in the facts and circumstances to be noticed hereinafter. Respondent No. 6 has lodged a complaint on 3/07/1989 before Tehsildar at Camp Sukharana that the petitioner appellant has forcibly taken possession of 37 bighas of land in Chak 5 M.D. which is in the khatedari of applicant's husband Akura Ram and a case is going on in that regard, therefore, the said occupant be evicted and possession be delivered to the complainant. On very same day 3/06/1989 the report was taken from Patwari in which it was reported that Babu Singh s/o Niku Singh is residing at said land which he has purchased through registered sale deed. However, the report neither says from whom Babu Singh has purchased said property and on what date. As would be noticed hereinafter this lack of information, only goes to show that it was made even without verifying any fact. However acting on the report on that very day an order was made that the petitioner be evicted and land may be delivered to Harijan and the proceedings under S. 175 Rajasthan Tenancy (Act) may be taken, in view of the fact that the sale in favour of the petitioner is void ab initio.

(2.) Coming to know of this order, the petitioner appealed before Revenue Appellate Authority who by his order dated 28/04/1990 held; firstly that the order passed by Tehsildar on 3-6-1989 was administrative in nature and the appeal against it is not maintainable. Secondly, he was also of the view that while the land which is claimed by the petitioners in his possession and subject-matter of sale in his favour is situated in Chak 5 M.D. Muraba Nos. 83 and 82, whereas as per report of the Tehsildar the land of Akuraram, deceased husband of the complainant is situated in Muraba No. 121 Chak 5 M.D. and there is variance about the identity of land in question.

(3.) According to this finding, the appeal was dismissed. On further appeal Board of Revenue by its order dated 28-5-1995 held that there is no illegality in the order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority. He has noticed that prior to the present proceedings a proceeding under S. 175 had taken place against the petitioner which was decided in his favour and appeal against that order filed by the State is still pending. In that view of the matter, the petitioner could not have been evicted by the order under challenge, which appears to be passed in exercise of his administrative power. As on the date the order dated 3-6-1989 was passed against the petitioner-appellant appeal against the order of the Assistant Collector under S. 175 dated 22-9-1977 was pending. By ignoring those proceedings, which has been culminated in favour of the petitioner, he could not have been evicted by the proceedings under challenge. This contention of the petitioner has been rejected by the Board of Revenue on the ground that the decision which has been rendered under S. 175 in the proceedings of 22-9-1977 having been made subject-matter of the appeal was not final and, therefore, it could not come in way of making the order in question made by the Tehsildar on 3-6-1989. He has also not upheld the contention of the petitioner on the ground that neither could filed a suit for declaration, nor he can be permitted to take the plea of adverse possession because of (sic) his possession was illegal, therefore, the claim of the petitioner comes to an end. On these findings revision was dismissed.