SAL KHAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ petition of 1989 is having its second round of hearing by the Single bench pursuant to the remand order passed by the Division Bench of this Court while allowing State's appeal being D.B.C.S.A.W. No.718/2000, arising out of present SBCWP No.3458/1989, State of Rajasthan & Anr. Vs. Sal Khan & Ors., decided on 20.07.2010 with the following observations: -

(2.) WHILE allowing the writ petition of the present petitioner earlier, the learned Single Judge of this Court on 09.07.1998 had allowed the aforesaid writ petition with the following observations: -

(3.) MR . J.L. Purohit, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Ajay Purohit, learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently submitted that the learned revenue courts below of learned S.D.O., Barmer, as well as Board of Revenue, have erred in dismissing the revenue suit filed by the present petitioner, Sal Khan S/o Adrim Khan, whereas the learned Revenue Appellate Authority vide its order Annex.2 dated 29.12.1980, had decreed such suit in favour of present petitioner and, therefore, the order passed by the learned Single Judge on earlier occasion, deserves to be reiterated and the writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be allowed. Mr. J.L. Purohit, Sr. Advocate, inter - alia, relied upon the provisions of Section 10 read with definition of word 'Tenant' in Section 3 (10) of the Marwar Tenancy Act, 1949; and also a decision of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Purajsingh & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. reported in 1966 ILR 1105 and submitted that on the basis of 'Lagan' receipts (land revenue), paid by the father of the present petitioner, namely, Sh. Adrim Khan, on coming into force of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1955') the present petitioner will be deemed to be 'Khatedar' of the said 276 Bighas of land, (wrongly mentioned as 1276 Bighas of land in the order of the Division Bench of this Court quoted above) in various Khasra numbers. He, therefore, argued that the revenue suit filed by the present petitioner under Sections 88 and 188 of the Act of 1955 deserved to be decreed and the order of the Board of Revenue impugned in the present writ petition including the order of learned S.D.O., Barmer, deserve to be quashed and set aside.