STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. TEJA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Special Appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 4-4-1997, whereby he allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent Teja and set aside the order of the Board of Revenue dated 8-7-1992 following the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Anandi Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in 1995 (1) RLR 555: ( AIR 1996 Supreme Court 154).

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the first respondent Teja filed a declaratory suit under Sec. 88 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act 1955, hereinafter referred-to as "the Act of 1955', against Chhoga and fourth respondent Bhera in the Court of Assistant Collector Bhinmal. He claimed to be in the cultivatory possession of 58 bighas and 19 biswas of land in Khasra No. 100 in village Metriwada, District Jalore, much prior to 15-10-1955 i.e before coming into force the Act of 1955. Thus, according to him, he became khatedar tenant of the land in view of Sec. 15 of the Act of 1955 but at the time of first settlement, the said land was wrongly entered in the name of Chhoga, father of respondent No. 3, who was working as his labourer. The said land was later-on transferred to the fourth respondent. According to first respondent Teja, it was a paper transaction and the possession of the land was never transferred to the fourth respondent Chhoga, father of respondent No. 3, as he himself was not having possession of the said land. Thus, the first respondent asserted that he was in cultivatory possession of the said land. After detailed enquiry, the suit was decreed in favour of the first respondent by the judgment of the Assistant Collector, Bhinmal dated 5-7-1979. Accordingly, the land was mutated in the name of first respondent under Mutation No. 322 dated 16-8-1979. After 13 years, the Collector Jalore made a reference under Sec. 232 of the Act of 1955 to the Board of Revenue for setting aside the decree & judgment passed by the Assistant Collector, Bhinmal dated 5-7-1979. The Board of Revenue accepted the reference by judgment dated 18-7-1992, which came to be set aside by the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 4-4-1997.

(3.) It is contended by Shri H.R. Soni, learned Additional Government Advocate, that the judgment of the learned Single Judge is in conflict with the subsequent decision of this Court in State of Rajasthan Vs. Board of Revenue, reported in 1996 WLR 559 : (1997 AIHC 3619) (Raj) .