PRAYAGCHAND Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner questioning the validity of judgment of Board of Revenue dated 07.07.1993, judgment and decree dated 21.07.1984 passed by Revenue Appellate Authority ('RAA') and judgment and decree dated 15.11.1983 passed by Sub Divisional Officer, Nohar ('SDO'), whereby, the suit filed by respondent No. 5 - Kheta Ram under Section 88 and 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 ('the Act') was decreed and the first appeal and the second appeal filed by the petitioner have been dismissed.

(2.) RESPONDENT No. 5 - Kheta Ram filed a suit in the year 1978 seeking declaration that he was Gair Khatedar of the land ad measuring 10 Bigha comprised in Khasra No. 15, present Khasra No. 350/44 situated at Rohi, village Sanghatiya, Tehsil Nohar and that the same was allotted to him and was in his possession and for revocation of Khatoni Jamabandi for Samvat years 2029 to 2038 to get his name recorded instead of the petitioner herein; the land was allotted to him for ten years on 21.07.1972 and he was in possession of the land from before allotment; he was complying with all the conditions of allotment and was Gair Khatedar of the said land; it was claimed that the settlement department while preparing Khatoni Jamabandi for the Samvat years 2029 to 2038 has wrongly recorded 5 Bigha land alongwith Sivay Chak land and, therefore, he was entitled for declaration in his favour and get it corrected; it was alleged that taking advantage of the wrong entry, the defendant was seeking to dispossess the plaintiff and has threatened him in this regard and, therefore, he was entitled for injunction; ultimately relief was sought for declaration, correction and injunction.

(3.) IN the additional plea, it was indicated that the land was allotted to the petitioner since the year 1972 and since then he was in possession and the suit in absence of possession was not maintainable; it was also claimed that the plaintiff has raised objection in the past also and on 17.12.1976 a compromise was entered into between the parties and, as such, the same operates as estoppel.