MAHENDRA SINGH Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent bank granted loan of Rs. 3,000/- to Gokul after mortgaging the land measuring 54.12 Bigha. At the time of mortgage in the revenue record, the name of Gokul was recorded as Khatedar. The petitioners purchased the certain part of the said land through registered sale deed on 13.7.1970 after paying consideration of Rs. 10,000/- and possession of the land in dispute was handed over to the petitioner. In the revenue record, name of the petitioner was also recorded.

(2.) It is averred on behalf of the petitioners that Gokul did not disclose the fact that the land in dispute has been mortgaged with the bank against the loan of Rs. 3,000/-. On 28.5.1976, the respondent bank auctioned the land bearing Khasra No. 955/1.17 and 956/1.11. The possession of .he said land was also taken by the bank and name of the bank was entered in the revenue record. The case of the petitioners is that other land belonging to Gokul has not been auctioned while Gokul has mortgaged the land belonging to various Khasras including Khasra's in question.

(3.) A suit was filed by the petitioner for permanent injunction against the respondent bank and Gokul, Ranjeet, which was decreed vide judgment dated 21.6.1982 in favour of the petitioners and the respondents were restrained from selling, mortgaging and transferring the land in dispute. It is submitted that this order has not been challenged by the opposite party. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a suit for declaration and rectification in the entries of revenue record against the bank on 20.7.1983, but the same was dismissed by the trial Court on 13.11.1987. The judgment dated 13.11.1987 was challenged by the petitioner before the Revenue Appellate Authority. The appeal of the petitioners was allowed by the Appellate Authority vide judgment dated 28.4.1992. The judgment dated 28.4.1992 was challenged by the bank before the Board of Revenue, which came to be allowed vide judgment dated 26.12.1995. The Board of Revenue upheld the judgment passed by the trial Court and set aside the judgment dated 28.4.1992 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, therefore, the present writ petition is preferred by the petitioners.