HUKAM SINGH Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE, RAJASTHAN, AJMER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed seeking quashing of order of the Board of Revenue (for short 'the Board') dtd. 12/6/2002, allowing the review.

(2.) The brief facts are that Smt. Rajwan widow of Bholia (hereinafter referred to as 'plaintiff') filed a suit under Ss. 88, 89 and 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act') against her brother-in-laws, claiming share in the property left by Roda (her father-in-law). As per the pleadings in the suit, Roda had four sons namely Banshi, Depti, Phusa and Bholia and each had one-fourth share in the agricultural land of Roda. Banshi along with Phusa were collectively cultivating one-half share and Depti along with Bholia were jointly cultivating the other half. After death of Bholia, plaintiff continued as co-owner along with Depti. In Samwat year 2029, during settlement proceedings, the land was recorded only in the name of Depti. On 11/5/1982, a suit was filed by the plaintiff claiming one-half share of Khasra Nos.295 and 296 situated in Village Salaheda, Tehsil Tijara. The suit was decreed on 3/5/1986 and it was ordered that one-half share be recorded in the name of appellant along with Depti. The appeal filed by the defendants in the suit was accepted on 9/11/1995. The Appellate Authority held that the plaintiff was never in cultivating possession of the land. During pendency of the appeal, the plaintiff sold the land to the petitioners vide registered sale deed dtd. 9/1/1990. The order of the Appellate Authority was challenged by the petitioners along with daughter of the plaintiff. The Board accepted the appeal on 1/11/2000 holding that the plaintiff being widow of Bholia could inherit his property and that settlement department could not have change the entries without order of the competent Court. The review filed by the defendants-respondents was accepted by the Board on 12/6/2002 and the second appeal was ordered to be decided afresh. Hence, the present petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Board has gone beyond the jurisdiction in accepting the review and there cannot be re-hearing of the matter. Reliance is placed upon decision of the Supreme Court in D.R. Somayajulu, Secretary, Diesel Loco Shed And South Eastern Railway House Building Cooperative Society Limited, Visakhapatnam And Ors. vs. Attili Appala Swamy And Ors. reported in (2015) 2 SCC 390 and decision of this Court dtd. 24/1/2002 in D.B. Civil Review Petition Nos.1/99 and 2/99 titled as Pema Ram and Anr. vs. Rajendra and Ors. to contend that the jurisdiction in review is limited.