RADHEY SHYAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS intra court appeal is directed against order dated 10.08.01 of the learned Single Judge of this court, whereby a writ petition preferred by the appellant herein against the order dated 12.9.97 of the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, stands dismissed.

(2.) THE relevant facts are that appellant filed a suit for declaration, correction of entries and permanent injunction, under the provisions of Section 88, 89 & 188 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 in respect of the lands comprising khasra no.4227, 4228 and 4229 of village-Pansal, Tehsil & District-Bhilwara. The appellant averred that the land ad measuring 1 bigha 2 biswas comprising khasra no.4227, 1 biswa comprising khasra no.4228 and 2 bighas & 1 biswa comprising khasra no. 4229 was khatedari land of his father Moti Lal s/o Pyar Chand and after his death, the appellant has acquired khatedari rights over the said land. According to the appellant, during the settlement without any basis, the said lands were recorded 'Bilanam Sarkar' and appellant's father was held to be trespasser.

(3.) ON the basis of the pleading of the parties, the Revenue court framed the issues and parties led their evidence. The appellant in his statement recorded before the court below confined his claim only in respect of the land comprising khasra no.4227. During the arguments also, the claim with regard to the lands other than the land comprising khasra no.4227 was abandoned on behalf of the appellant. After due consideration of the evidence on record, the Revenue Court arrived at a categorical finding that according to settlement conversion table that khasra no.1530 and 1628 Min were converted into khasra no.4227 , 4228 and 4229 and as per the revenue record, the appellant's father Shri Motilal was recorded as khatedar tenant of the land comprising khasra no.1628 Min only and the land comprising khasra no.1530, which stands converted into khasra no.4227, was never in his possession as khatedar tenant. Accordingly, the suit preferred by the appellant was dismissed by the Revenue Court vide judgment and decree dated 12.11.91.