CHHOTU SINGH Vs. THE BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is one of the case of a travesty of injustice, where the man started his journey from filing a revenue suit way back on 29.08.1960 for declaration and injunction against the present appellant not to interfere with his possession and almost 54 years have passed by now and still the litigation could not have been put to rest. The facts, in brief, which can be envisaged by us from the record and judgment of the ld. Single Judge, in particular, depict that the respondent No. 2 Bheru (now deceased) filed a revenue suit on 29.08.1960 against the present appellant for declaration and injunction and prayed that the appellant should not interfere with his possession and the first original revenue Court after examining the overall record and taking note of the proceedings which at one time initiated u/S. 145 Cr.P.C. so also the fact of sale -deed dt. 12.01.1960 executed by Mishrilal, who was working as Cook with appellant on a consideration of Rs. 100/ -, in favour of the appellant Chhotu Singh and the oral evidence which was recorded during the course of enquiry, finally arrived at the conclusion that it was a sham transaction and the fact was that the subject land in question, from the evidence adduced by the parties, was in possession of Bheru on 01.09.1960 when he filed the suit for declaration and injunction but it revealed that possession was forcibly taken by the appellant Chhotu Singh who after taking the subject land in possession filed a suit on 30.06.1961 and thereafter the land was attached on 13.10.1961 and attachment was withdrawn on 13.06.1962 and obviously being in possession, it was restored back to Chhotu Singh but the incident which occurred could not give a binding effect on the jurisdiction of the revenue Court to decide on the basis of the bare situation merely because of the filing of suit.

(2.) EVEN on merits, the ld. Single Judge has appreciated the material which has come on record and came to the conclusion that the Assistant Collector has rightly appreciated the material in its original order and the Board of Revenue also on re -appreciation has rightly affirmed the finding recorded by the Assistant Collector and apart from it the ld. Single Judge has also observed that in Samvat Year 2012 i.e. 15.10.1955 when the Rajasthan Tenancy Act was enforced, it was Bheru who was in possession of the subject land and as per the legislative intention those who are actual tillers on the date of commencement of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, were conferred with khatedari rights in view of S.15 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 and as regards the judgment of ld. Revenue Appellate Authority, the ld. Single Judge after appreciation of material, recorded his finding that apart from the order which was cursorily passed, he has not looked into the material which came on record and the inference drawn as to who was in actual possession on the date when the Rajasthan Tenancy Act was enforced and also observed regarding the execution of sale -deed by Mishrilal in favour of appellant Chhotu Singh on 12.01.1960 for a consideration of Rs. 100/ -, however, it was also recorded that Mishrilal was a cook in the family of Chhotu Singh and settlement has wrongly issued parcha in his name and he got the sale -deed executed only to rectify the mistake and in totality of the circumstances and facts which came on record, the ld. Single Judge was not inclined to interfere in the finding of fact which was finally appreciated by the Board of Revenue and arrived to a logical conclusion.

(3.) BEFORE we may take note of the submissions made by counsel for appellant, we would like to notice that at least as regard the finding of fact is concerned, some line has to be drawn where it can be put to rest. However, we may further add that if the finding is wholly perverse and not supported by tangible evidence which has come on record, certainly that can always be looked into but if it has been appreciated by the final appellate authority it is not open for this Court to re -appreciate the finding as a Court of appeal.