ANANDI LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed seeking quashing of orders dtd. 20/5/1997, 7/11/1998, 18/3/1999 and 27/10/2004 dismissing the suit, appeals and review respectively.

(2.) The brief facts are that the petitioner No.1-Anandi Lal and Devi Lal: father of petitioner No.2-Radhey Shyam purchased land comprising of khasra Nos.90 measuring 13 bigha 2 biswas, khasra No.261 measuring 1 bigha 2 biswas, khasra No.299 measuring 5 biswa, khasra No.378 measuring 1 bigha 13 biswas, khasra No.391 measuring 5 bighas, khasra No.124 measuring 8 bighas 18 biswas and khasra No.230 measuring 17 bighas 13 biswas in all 47 bighas 13 biswas situated in Village Hanuwant Kheda (hereinafter 'land') vide registered sale deed dtd. 6/7/1965. The land was purchased from Mohana Son of Sukha (hereinafter referred to as 'seller') belonging to Scheduled Caste (for brevity 'SC'). The petitioner No.1 claimed to be in cultivating possession of the land. The petition filed under Sec. 175 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act of 1955') seeking ejectment of petitioners for legal transfer or sub letting was dismissed on 19/9/1978 being not maintainable. The application filed under Sec. 183B of the Act of 1955 by son of seller for summary ejectment of the trespasser of the land held by a member of SC/ST category was allowed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (for short 'SDO') vide order dtd. 22/1/1983. The Revenue Appellate Authority ('RAA') on 2/8/1986 set aside the order of the SDO and held that the petitioner No.1 was in adverse possession of the land for over twelve years. The revision filed against order of RAA was dismissed on 24/9/1993. The petitioners filed suit for declaring the petitioners to be khatedar of the land. The suit was dismissed on 20/5/1997. It was held that in revenue record the land was recorded in the name of son of the seller. The sale of land in the year 1965 was against the provision of Sec. 42(b) of the Act of 1955 and the petitioners had no right to claim khatedari of the land. The dismissal order was upheld by the RAA and by the Board of Revenue (hereafter 'the Board') vide orders dtd. 7/11/1998 and 18/3/1999 respectively. The review filed by the petitioners was dismissed by the Board on 27/10/2004. Hence, the present writ petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in case the petitioners belonged to SC category the application filed under Sec. 175 of the Act of 1955 should have been allowed but it was dismissed as not maintainable. The contention is that the findings recorded in ejectment proceedings under Sec. 183B of the Act of 1955 that petitioner was in adverse possession of land having attained finality, the suit should have been decreed on principle of res-judicata.