BALU Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a writ petition by Balu under Art. 226 of the Constitution against an order of the Revenue Board dated the 12th December, 1960.

(2.) THE facts leading up to this petition may be shortly stated as follows. Respondents Udaram, Omprakash and two others had obtained a Bapi patta of certain agricultural holdings bearing Khasara Nos. 42, 44 and 86 situated in village Kotra, Tehsil Osian, from the Tehsildar of Jodhpur, during the regime of the erstwhile Jodhpur State, on the 22nd February, 1949. THEse other two persons sold their rights to one Ramchandra who having died is represented in this proceeding by his two minor sons Bhanwar Singh and Mangal Singh through their respective mothers Msts. Godawari and Jamna. THE petitioner took an appeal against the order of the Tehsildar to the Deputy Commissioner Jodhpur. This was, however, dismissed as the memorandum of appeal filed by the petitioner was not accompanied by a copy of the order sought to be appealed against. It is admitted that this order was upheld right up to the Revenue Board. THEreafter respondents Udaram and Omprakash and certain others filed a suit for possession of these agricultural holdings in the court of the Assistant Collector Jodhpur, the allegation being that the former had been dispossessed of the holdings in question by the petitioner Balu. THE petitioner who was defendant in the suit, inter alia contended that the Tehsildar Jodhpur had no authority or jurisdiction whatsoever to grant any Bapi patta of Mustaqil or Ghair Mustaqil agricultural lands at the relevant time in the former State of Jodhpur. THE trial court, namely, the Assistant Collector, Jodhpur, upheld the petitioner's contention and dismissed the respondent's suit. THE respondents then went up in appeal to the Additional Commissioner, Jodhpur, from the judgment and decree of the Assistant Collector Jodhpur. THE Additional Commissioner set aside the trial court's judgment and decree and remanded the case for a decision on the remaining issues as the trial court had dismissed the plaintiff's suit on the issue relating to jurisdiction treating it as a preliminary point. THE petitioner then went up in appeal to the Board of Revenue who by its judgment dated the 12th December, 1960, (the date 12th November, 1960, mentioned in the writ petition, it is conceded, was an error for the date 12th December, 1960) upheld the order of the Additional Commissioner. It is against this decision that the present writ application has been filed before us.