KHHOONI Vs. MAKHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the order of the Land Records Officer (Sub -Division) Bharatpur dated 13.10.60. We have heard the counsel for the parties and examined the record carefully.

(2.) This appeal arises out of an application under sec.136 of the Land Revenue Act. The respondent Makhan made an application before the Records Officer on 4.3.58 praying for the correction of khasra teep in respect of khasra No. 365 and 366 from Svt. year 2008 to Svt. 2014 alleging that these entries had been made by collusion in favour of the appellant Khooni. The appellant contested the the application alleging the entries to be duly and correctly made." During the course of the trial both the parties led oral evidence. The learned Records Officer after recording this evidence came to the finding that the entries in the khasra teep were wrong and directed them to be corrected in favour of the applicant.

(3.) It is against the aforesaid order that the present appeal has been filed. It is urged "before us that the learned Records Officer has acted against the weight of the evidence and has also not cared to give due effect to the presumption which had arisen in favour of the appellant as the entries had stood unchallenged for a continuous period of 7 years and had also been in the meantime incorporated in quadrennial Jamabandi. The entries standing in the Jamabandi have a presumption of truth attached to them under sec. 140 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, as the quadrennial Jamabandi is the record of the rights. The learned counsel for the respondent in reply has urged that as the khasra teep entry in Smt. year 2015 stood in their name, they did not feel the need for the correction of entries standing prior to that year. He also urged that the respondents being villagers, not fully understanding the implications of such matters remained under bona fide belief that these entries did not matter. We have given our earnest consideration to these arguments. There is no doubt that no limitation has been provided under S. 126 and an application for the correction of entries in annual records can be made after the lapse of any period, but it is to be pres -sumed that once an entry has been permitted to persist in record after record, the party negligent has accepted the entry. We also find force in the arguments of the learned counsel that proper effect was not given by the learned Records Officer to the fact that in between the years 2008 to Smt. 2014 there has been a quadrennial Jamabandi and that its entries carry presumption of truth. This presumption is rebuttable but very strong evidence is required to rebut these entries. Merely oral evidence in our opinion is not sufficient to rebut the presumption of the record of rights, as these entries are supposed to be recorded only after attestation from the parties. We, therefore, hold that the decision of the trial court is erroneous and wrong and cannot be maintained. Accordingly we accept this appeal and direct that the original entries made by the Patwaris shall be restored.