GORDHAN Vs. GHASADI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is revision application under sec. 10 (2) of the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance, 1949, against an order of the S.D.O. Bayana dated 12.10.54 rejecting the request of the opposite party for protection under sec. 7 of the Ordinance.

(2.) THIS case has a very chequered history. The applicants filed an application for reinstatement under sec. 7 of the Ordinance on 8 khasra numbers 1449 to 1456 measuring 18 bighas 3 biswas alleging that they had been cultivating the land in dispute but were dispossessed by the opposite party on 2.1.53. The S.D.O. sanctioned this application the same day. On a revision being filed before this Board this case was remanded for further enquiry and fresh decision to the S.D.O. Bayana The said S.D.O fixed 29.10.52 for hearing the case and summoned the parties. As on this day the summons for the applicants were not received back, the case was further adjourned twice. Eventually when it was taken on 20.11.52 the applicants failed to appear in spite of service and the application was rejected. In consequence of the dismissal of the application of the applicants,the opposite party was ordered to be restored possession of which he had been dispossessed as a result of the S.D.O's. order dated 10.6.52. The girdavar proceeded to the spot and delivered possession to Ghasida on 9.12.52 and a dakhalnama was filed by the opposite party before the Tehsildar Weir on 15-12 52. Gordhan applicant then presented a fresh application to the S.D.O. on 6.1.53 alleging that he had been dispossessed of the land in dispute on 2.1.53 and should therefore be reinstated. The opposite party pleaded that he had never dispossessed the applicants and that he had been put in possession through the court of the Tehsildar by way of restitution as a consequence of the dismissal of the applicant's previous application. The S.D.O. held that the proceedings relating to restitution and delivery of possession to the opposite party on 9 12-52 were confined to paper only and that actual possession had never been transferred and that Gordhan etc. had actually dispossessed the opposite party on 2.1.53. He therefore, ordered reinstatement of the applicants. On a revision having been again filed by the opposite party against the above order the S.D.O. in this Board, the decision of the lower court was set aside and the case was remanded with the observation that "the patwari and the girdavar were persons who went to the spot and reported delivery of possession. If neither party examined these persons, it was the duty of the court more so as it had practically condemned their action, to examine them and to ascertain the real facts from them." In compliance of this order the S.D.O. examined Udmilal lamberdar patwari Dalchand and Mannalal girdawar Kanugo and held that actual possession had been delivered to the opposite party through the Tehsil on 9.12.52 and as such the applicants having not been in possession within three months immediately preceding the date of filing the applications under the Ordinance their application for reinstatement was beyond limitation. The applicants have now come in revision against the above order before this Board.