CHHAILA Vs. REVENUE BOARD AJMER THROUGH REGISTRAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition the plaintiff-petitioner whose suit for clarification of entries was dismissed and the appeals filed before the Revenue Appellate Authority and Board of Revenue were also dismissed has challenged the said judgments. It has come in the order of the learned trial Court (Annexure-6) dated 24.9.1999 that despite being served the defendants did not put any appearance and were proceeded ex-parte. The plaintiff on his part produced the evidence in the form of PW-1 Jahaz Khan, PW-2 Juhru Khan and PW-3 the plaintiff himself. Documentary evidence Exhibit P-I Jamabandi, Exhibit-2 the Khasra of Samvat Year 1982 and Exhibit P-3 the notice were produced before the learned trial Court. The evidence that was produced in the form of PW-I, PW-2 and PW-3 have all stated that plaintiff is in cultivatory possession of the land. Exhibit P-2, the khasra of Samvat Year 1982 of the erstwhile State of Bharatpur in which the land is situated, as per the case of the petitioner records that land is in possession and Is being cultivated by Malekhan who is ancestor of the plaintiff. In spite of the aforesaid documentary evidence which remained unrebutted, the trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground that plaintiff has failed to prove that he is in the possession of the land. It is surprising that when the evidence remains unrebutted, how the learned trial Court could come to a conclusion otherwise. Merely by saying that no land receipt of the land revenue were produced, it could not be held by the learned trial Court that plaintiff has not proved his possession. This finding has been upheld right upto the Board of Revenue. In this writ petition a reply has been filed by the Respondents No. 5 and 6 who have inter alia submitted that respondents have lodged an FIR against the petitioner which is No. 34 of 2002 for the offences under Sections 467, 466, 468, 471, 473 and 474 I.P.C. with regard to the document that was produced by the petitioner. These facts were not before the trial Court nor before the appellate Court.

(2.) In the stay application the petitioner filed document in the form of an order passed by the Assistant Collector in Case No. 71/2002 dated 14.8.2002 Gram Panchayat, Udaka Chhaila Anr., wherein the Gram Panchayat sought an order of injunction against the petitioner restraining the petitioner Chhaila and another from interfering and taking forcible possession of the land and not disturbing the proceedings auctioning the same, Learned Assistant Collector dismissed the said application by regarding a finding in favour of the petitioner.

(3.) In the writ petition an inquiry of this nature cannot be undertaken. Consequently, since the non-petitioners did not put in appearance before the learned trial Court nor did they file any written statement traversing the plaint, in the fitness of things, I deem it just and proper that the judgments' passed by the Courts below be set aside and the case be remanded to the trial Court for a decision afresh after allowing an opportunity to the respondents to file written statement. Learned trial Court would afford an opportunity to both the parties to lead evidence in support of their respective claims and decide the suits afresh within a period of six months of the filing of certified copy of this order.