NAND SINGH Vs. SMT. SUNDER AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of instant writ petition, the Petitioner has implored to set aside the judgment dated 29th September, 2000, judgment dated 30th January, 2001 and judgment dated 9th April, 2003 rendered by Sub Divisional Officer, Kekri, Revenue Appellate Authority, Ajmer and Board of Revenue, Ajmer respectively.

(2.) CONTEXTUAL facts of the instant case depict that the Appellant -Plaintiff filed a suit in the trial Court in the year 1958 for eviction and declaration, mentioning therein that land ad -measuring 1 -7 -10 rakba situated in khasra No. 833; 1 -0 -0 rakba situated in khasra No. 846, 1 -16 -0 rakba situated in khara No. 835; 2 -2 -10 rakba situated in khasra No. 847, 0 -10 -0 rakba situated in khasra No. 853, 1 -6 -10 rakba in khasra No. 886, and 1 -9 -10 rakba bigha situated in khasra No. 885 was given to him by the Jagirdar, Thikana Chosla (Sawar), over which the Plaintiff Appellant was having ownership and cultivatory possession. It was also mentioned in the suit that due to fault of the authorities of Revenue Department, the disputed land was not entered in the name of the Plaintiff and rather it was entered in the name of Nanda S/o Kalyan by caste Kumawat. The learned trial Court having analyzed the matter, dismissed the suit of the Plaintiff -Appellant vide judgment dated 27.2.1969. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 27.2.1969, Plaintiff -Appellant preferred an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, wherein the appeal of the Plaintiff -Appellant was accepted vide judgment dated 18.12.1973 and the matter was remanded to the learned trial Court with the direction to decide the matter afresh. On the basis of the said remand order, the matter was again heard by the learned trial Court and the same was again dismissed. Again an appeal was preferred by the Plaintiff - Appellant before the Revenue Appellate Authority, whereupon again vide judgment dated 21.2.1987, the matter was remanded to the learned trial Court. The learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 21.10.1995 decreed the suit of the Plaintiff - Appellant, upon which an appeal was preferred by the Defendants before the Revenue Appellate Authority. The learned Revenue Appellate Authority, vide its judgment dated 30.1.1999 set -aside the judgment of the trial Court and remanded the matter to the learned trial Court again. Having received the remanded matter, the learned trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 29.9.2000, dismissed the suit of the Plaintiff, against which an appeal was preferred before the Revenue Appellate Authority. The learned Revenue Appellate Court vide its judgment and decree dated 30th January, 2001, partly allowed the appeal of the Plaintiff Appellant and declared the disputed land to be "Sivai Chak". Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 30th January, 2011 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, both the Plaintiff - Appellant and Defendants preferred two separate appeals before the Board of Revenue, which too stood dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 9th April, 2003 and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 30th January, 2001 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioner has utterly failed to show that any legal question was involved in the writ petition. So far as factual position of the writ petition is concerned, there has been a concurrent finding with regard to the facts of the case by all the three Courts below.