PREM SINGH Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been preferred by the petitioners against the order passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer in second appeal preferred by the petitioners under Sec. 224 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act of 1955' hereinafter), while challenging the order dt. 11.03.1998 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority and the order dt. 16.01.1997 passed by SDO, Jodhpur. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners filed a revenue suit under Sec. 88 and 188 of the Act of 1955 for declaration of khatedari rights and permanent injunction, while claiming that father of the petitioners Heer Singh was granted patta by the Erstwhile State of Jodhpur on 11.04.1950 for the land falling in Khasra No. 511 measuring 7/3 bighas and Khasra No. 512 measuring 29 bighas of Village Chainpura, Mandore. It was alleged in the suit that the land of Khasra No. 511 was recorded in the name of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 only while excluding the petitioner No. 3 and the land of Khasra No. 512 was recorded as Government land, whereas the land of Khasra No. 513 was recorded as Rasta.

(2.) WHILE claiming possession over the land of Khasra Nos. 511, 512 and 513, it was alleged that the land of Khasra Nos. 512 and 513 has wrongly been recorded as Government land and Rasta and the name of the petitioner No. 3 has not been recorded as Khatedar of land of Khasra No. 511, though names of his two brothers have been recorded. It was prayed that the petitioners be declared as Khatedars of land of Khasra Nos. 512 and 513 and name of the petitioner No. 3 be entered as Khatedar of land of Khasra Nos. 511, 512 and 513 and respondents be restrained by way of permanent injunction from dispossessing the petitioners from the land of Khasra Nos. 511, 512 and 513 of Village Chainpura, Mandore.

(3.) BEFORE the SDO, Jodhpur, in support of the revenue suit, the petitioners got recorded the statements of four witnesses including the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, however, no evidence was led on behalf of the State Government. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioners preferred an application under Secs. 65 and 66 of the Indian Evidence Act seeking permission to lead secondary evidence on the ground that as the original patta issued in favour of father of the petitioners for the lands of Khasra Nos. 511 and 512 is not available, therefore, the petitioners be allowed to produce the photostat of the said patta in secondary evidence. The said application was rejected by the SDO on 16.08.1996.