LRS OF RATAN SINGH Vs. KALU RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE no one has appeared for the appellant, though otherwise represented, we could have dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution but we refrain from doing so because dismissal of the appeal for want of prosecution does not serve anybody's purpose.

(2.) WE have perused record of the appeal and also the writ petition out of which this appeal arises and have also considered the submissions of learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.1 to 4 on merits of the controversy, which is subject matter of present appeal. Having perused record of the case and after hearing the submissions of learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.1 to 4 and also the State counsel, who appeared for respondents No.5 to 8, we are of the considered opinion that this appeal has no merit.

(3.) THE Revenue Appellate Authority concurred with all the findings recorded by the Sub Divisional Officer and accordingly dismissed the appeal, finding no merit therein vide judgment dated 16.3.2000 (Annx.5). The plaintiff (appellant herein) felt aggrieved of the first appellate court's order, carried the matter to second appellate court i.e. before the Board of Revenue, being Appeal No.58/2000.