MEGHA Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 20.11.2020 passed by the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan by which the appeal filed by the petitioners has been dismissed, so also the judgment dated 17.04.2017 passed by Settlement Officer cum Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur and judgment and decree dated 07.05.1997 passed by Dy. Collector, Girwa, Udaipur whereby, the khatedari land of Araji No. 4445/3624 measuring 0.2450 hectare has been declared in the name of respondents No. 3 to 5.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioners submits that a civil suit was filed by the respondent no.3, 4 and 5 in which defendant Moda S/o Ratta was impleaded as party respondent and petitioners were not party in the said suit for declaration of land. Dy. Collector, Girwa heard the plaintiffs and declared the khatedari of land of Araji No. 4445/3624 measuring 0.2450 hectare in the name of respondents No. 3 to 5. It is submitted that initially the land was allotted to the petitioners' father Rataji in Samvat 1829 and when the petitioners came to know about the order dated 07.05.1997, they filed an appeal before the Revenue Appellate authority. It is argued that Araji No. 4445/3624 measuring 0.2450 hectare was made from Sabik Araji No. 1929 measuring 1 bigha 7 biswa and this araji was recorded in the name of Rataji, father of petitioners. Earlier the allotting authority also vide order dated 20.09.1971 mentioned that the possession of land is with Rataji. However, the first court decided the suit without hearing the petitioners. It is further argued that the first appellate court did not consider the material on record and dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners. Similarly, the Board of Revenue committed an error in dismissing the application filed by the petitioners under Order 41 Rule 2 and 3 read with Order 6 rule 17 and Section 151 CPC so also appeal filed by the petitioners on the ground that they failed to prove their ownership by way of producing documents before the first appellate Court. Therefore, this writ petition may be allowed and the impugned orders passed by the revenue courts below may be set aside. Counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on judgment in the case of North Eastern Railway Administration v. Bhagwan Das reported in 2008(2) WLC (SC) Civil 186, S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu by Lrs v. Jagannath through LRS reported in AIR 1994 SC 853 and Damodar Trimbak Tanksale and ors v. Rajendra Shrikrishna Deshmukh and Ors reported in 2007 AIR SCW 4583.

(3.) Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No. 15 and 16 submits that the Dy. Collector, Girwa had called a report from the Tehsildar concerned in which it has been specifically mentioned that the possession of land was with respondents No. 3, 4 and 5. The said court also sought report from Patwari and the Patwari in his report dated 22.03.97 mentioned that the land belongs to respondents No. 3, 4 and 5. The learned Dy. Collector accordingly decreed the suit and declared the land measuring 0.2450 hectare of Araji No. 4445/3624 in the khatedari of plaintiffs. It is argued that the present petitioners have raised a dispute after almost 15 years of judgment and decree dated 07.05.1997 whereas, the respondents No. 15 and 16 are having possession and title over the land for last 33 years. It is submitted that the Revenue Appellate Authority in its order has categorically mentioned that the respondents have proved their possession with documentary evidence and photographs and the petitioners have failed to establish that the land in question belong to petitioners or there is any possession of petitioners ever on the land in question. The petitioners misleading the Court while mentioning that Khasra NO. 1929 completely belongs to the petitioners. It is submitted that the revenue authorities have rightly held that the petitioners have no locus to challenge the allotment of Government land in favour of predecessor of respondents. It is submitted that the concurrent findings arrived at by the courts below after due consideration of the material on record, cannot be said to be perverse so as to warrant interference by this court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. So far as the judgment cited by counsel for the petitioners in the case of North Easter Railway Admn is concerned, the Hon'ble Apex Court considered the fact with regard to non-consideration of pendency of application under Order 41 rule 27 CPC seeking leave to adduce additional evidence by the High Court. In the case of Ramchandra Sakharam Mahajan (supra), the trial court and appellate court had not granted opportunity to the plaintiff for adducing secondary evidence by production of a certified copy of lease deed, which is not the case in hand. Therefore, it is prayed that no interference is called for in the concurrent finding arrived at by all the revenue courts below and the writ petition may be dismissed.