SUVA Vs. CHHOTU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision application under sec. 10(2) Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance,1949 against an order of the Assistant Collector, Sambhar dated 13-9-54re fusing protection to the applicant under sec. 7 of the Ordinance.

(2.) WE have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have also examined the record of the case. The applicant Suva applied for reinstatement over the land in dispute on 10-7-52 before the Anti-Ejectment Officer, Jaipur with the allegation that foe had been cultivating the same since long and that Chhotu, Bhanwar Singh and Sujya, opposite parties dispossessed him wrongfully. Chhotu denied the allegations and pleaded that Suva was a resident of Gangati Khurd and that he did not hold or cultivate any land in Gangati Kalan where the land in dispute was situate. Oral as well as documentary evidence was led by the parties. Oral evidence of the applicant consisted of persons cultivating lands round about the disputed land, who deposed to the case set up by the applicant. The witnesses examined by the opposite party corroborated the version put-forth on their behalf. The applicant produced two receipt for payment of irrigation due to the Irrigation Department for Svt. 2003 and Svt. 2007 (Ex. P. 1 and P. 2). A copy of the Navisht alleged to have been executed by Chhotu opposite party in favour of Sheo Karan Ex. P. 3, was also produced. The trial court held that the applicant failed to establish his possession within three months of the applica-cation. The request for reinstatement was rejected. The case was remanded by the Board for further enquiry on the lines indicated in the remand order. It was pointed out that the receipts for payment of irrigation dues produced by the applicant be scrutinised further to ascertain as to whether they appertained to the land in dispute or not. The Thikana papers were also directed to be examined show as to which party had been paying rents and for what land. The applicant examined an employee of the Irrigation Department, whereas, the opposite party produced copies of Khasras of Thikana Dadu along with a Kamdar. The trial court held that the applicant failed to establish his case. The reinstatement request was therefore rejected, again and hence this revision.