HUSSAIN BEG Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE FOR RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are four writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and are directed against the judgments of the Revenue Board whereby the revision applications arising out of proceedings relating to preparation of record of rights in respect of certain lands, in the course of settlement operations, were dismissed. As the writ petitions are more or less of identical nature and common questions of law are raised therein, it will be convenient to dispose them of together.

(2.) WE may mention the facts as contained in writ petition No. 101/61 for the purpose of appreciating the points that arise for consideration before us. The petitioner Hussain Beg was a co-sharer muafidar in village Makbara, Tehsil Toda Bhim, district Sawai Madhopur. The land of Khasra No. 25 which is in dispute measures 4 bighas and 12 biswas and covers two fields. In the revenue records these fields were entered as 'makbuza Panodar' Jagirdar. In September, 1913 when Settlement operations were going on, the name of one Bhagwatilal was entered as a person in possession as mortgagee. It is the case of the petitioner that there were fruit trees on the boundries of the two fields and they were planted by Bhagwatilal and Kishorilal or their ancestors, and out of the produce of the trees the petitioner used to take 1/3 share whereas 2/3 share was retained by Bhagwati Lal and Kishori Lal. Bhagwati Lal and Kishori Lal or their ancestors are said to have planted these trees some 30 years ago. Sometime later, the petitioner had pledged the right to take 1/3 share of the produce with Bhagwati Lal and Kishorilal but that pledge was, according to the petitioner, redeemed in due course. On or about 3. 8. 50, respondent No. 4 Chhotey Khan is said to have purchased the trees on the land from Kishorilal and accordingly Chhotey Khan became liable to give 1/3 share of the produce of the trees to the petitioner. Chhotey Khan, op the other hand, claimed that the 1/3 share of the petitioner in the produce of the trees continued to be pledged with him, but regarding the existence or the redemption of the pledge there is no dispute before us. It is averred by the petitioner that as the trees were located on the boundaries of the fields he used to cultivate the remaining vacant space of the land and also used to take its natural produce such as grass or 'pala' (bush leaves ). During the course of settlement operations respondent No. 4 Chhotey Khan applied before the revenue officials for entering his name as Khatedar in the record and on 13. 9. 53 the Assistant Settlement Officer passed an order for entering his name in the record as a Khatedar tenant. On 14. 9. 53, the entered a caveat before the Assistant Settlement Officer whereby he questioned the correctness of the entry in favour of respondent No. 4 Chhotey Khan and prayed that his name be removed from the record and the petitioner be recorded as a Khatedar tenant instead, inasmuch as the land was the Knudkasht of the petitioner. This dispute was enquired into by the Assistant Settlement Officer-cum-Assistant Record Officer, Kota, who after taking the evidence of both the parties came to the conclusion that there was no ground for modifying the entry already made. He held that the trees belonged to respondent No. 4, who had been paying 1/3 share of the produce thereof to the petitioner and therefore, his status was that of a Khatedar tenant. The learned Assistant Settlement Officer took note of the fact that there were 76 big trees on the land out of which 70 were mango trees and 6 were pipali 'jamun' 'neem' etc. Further there were 26 pits made ready for planting more trees therein out of which there were 18 saplings still in existence. The Assistant Settlement Officer also held that "the contention of the non-applicant (present petitioner) that they did cultivation in this land was untenable. It was further observed by him that "the land was 'banjar' and has been recorded as such He also observed that even if the muafidars be doing some scratching of the ground and growing some fodder, the holding will still be held to be a grove land. In these circumstances he ordered that the land should continue to be entered in the khata of respondent No. 4.

(3.) THE term 'land' has been defined in this Act to mean land which is let or held for agricultural purposes.