MANMOTI Vs. SHYAMLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bharatpur, dated 12.4.61 in a matter for correction of entries by which he has ordered the applicant appellants to be entered as trespassers against the disputed land for Kharif Smt.2014. THIS appeal deserves to be accepted, as has been very rightly conceded by the learned counsel for the respondent as well, for the simple reason that there is no provision for entering a trespasser in Rule 74 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Land Records) Rules, 1947. Vide that rule it is only the name of the tenant, i.e. a person holding land from Government or from an estate holder and liable to pay rent for the same that can be entered in column 6 of the Khasra Girdawari or vide sub-clause (iii) thereof as mortgagee, mortgagee's mortgagee, or the cultivator of such a mortgagee or vide clause(vi) thereof if the land is Khudkasht of an estate holder, or in case it is cultivated by a Shikmi, Shijari etc. of such a person, the name of such a person. Vide rule 75 thereof, it is the name of the sub-tenant alone if any, that can be entered below the entry referred to above after drawing a horizontal line between the two entries. There is no other rule or column prescribing any entry in the Khasra Girdawari. The name of a trespasser cannot be entered therein. The order of the learned Sub-Divisional Officer is, therefore, clearly untenable. He should have first fixed the right of the applicant appellants, if any, and then alone ordered the correction, if necessary.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the applicant appellants has, however, urged that vide Sec. 136 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act (No. 15) of 1956 the disputes are to be decided in accordance with the provisions of Secs. 123, 124 or 125, as the case may be, thereof; and that therefore, as provided by Sec. 125 the dispute should be decided on the basis of possession only and it should be only when it is not possible to satisfy as to who was in possession that the person best entitled to possession should be ascertained by a summary enquiry. THE argument is that as the learned Sub Divisional Officer has found the applicant appellants to be in possession of the disputed land their names should be allowed to remain entered in column 6 of Khasra Girdawari and it should be only the word "trespasser" entered therein that should be ordered to be struck off. This is an argument, however, which is not of much force. THE simple reason is that the entry is to be made in the Amal Register through the Khasra Girdawari. THE entry can, therefore, be made only in accordance with the provisions of the Land Records Rules referred to above and in no other manner. Unless there is any paper prescribed for such an entry or any column in any paper prescribed to be prepared for such an entry of a trespasser, it cannot be simply allowed to be made in the Khasra Girdawari as desired by the applicant appellants. THE factum of possession alone will not change the provisions for making entries prescribed by the Rules referred to above. THE provisions of Sec. 136 read with Sec. 125 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, therefore, will refer to the entries in the record and registers prescribed and will not permit any entry to be made in any paper in any manner whatsoever.