RAMDANA Vs. KANAHIYALAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the appellate order of the Revenue Appellate Authority Bikaner dated 5. 2. 62, whereby he upheld the order of the Trial Court dated 30. 4. 56 accepting the application of Shri Kanahiyalal opposite party and ordering that he be reinstated on the land in dispute. In fact the counsel for the petitioner was not sure whether he should file a revision or a second appeal as would be apparent from a perusal of the memo of revision/appeal. But his petition was treated as a revision and submitted to the Court of a single Member for decision.

(2.) THIS case has had a long and chequered history. An application was submitted under sec. 7 of Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance 24. 7. 52 by the opposite party praying for re-instatement in 14 Bighas of Khasra No. 729 in village Pachva. It was alleged that he had been forcibly ousted by the present applicant and his confederates. The Additional Sub-Divisional Officer, Makrana before whom the application was presented heard the evidence produced by either party and rejected the application vide his order dated 28. 9. 53. THIS was followed by two revision petitions, one filed by Thakur Jaswant Singh and the other by Shri Kanahiyalal the present opposite party before the Board of Revenue, Jaipur. The Board of Revenue vide their order dated 28. 4. 54 set aside the order of the Lower Court and remanded the case back to it with the direction that it should be tried afresh in accordance with law. It was observed inter-alia that the Lower Court should also consider whether the land included in the Patta in the possession of the present applicant was identical with the land in dispute as it was found that the Khasra numbers entered in the documents produced by either party were entirely different. The Assistant Collector, Nawa who re-heard the case accepted the application of the opposite party and ordered his re-instatement. Thereupon the present applicant went in appeal before the Additional Commissioner who vide his order dated 23. 5. 59 accepted the same and ordered that the Government should also be made a party in this case. THIS order was assailed before the Board of Revenue in a second appeal and the Board of Revenue vide their order dated 9. 3. 60 accepted the appeal and set aside the order of the Lower Appellate Court holding that the view taken by the learned Additional Commissioner was untenable. They remanded the case to the Additional Commissioner, Jodhpur with the direction that the appeal filed before him should be heard and determined in accordance with law.