BHAGWANA Vs. KAJOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Under challenge is the judgment dated 9-2-2016 passed by the Board of Revenue Rajasthan Ajmer (hereinafter 'the Board') setting aside the judgment/decree dated 20-1-2006 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority Jaipur (hereinafter 'the RAA') and restoring the judgment/decree dated 21-5-2002 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer Kotputli.

(2.) The facts relevant are that the petitioner-plaintiff (hereinafter 'the plaintiff' now dead and represented by his legal representative) filed a suit for declaration and injunction against the respondent defendant Kajod (hereinafter 'the defendant', also now dead and represented by his legal representatives) under Sections 188 and 88 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter 'the Act of 1955') in respect of land in khasra No.7 admeasuring 0.92 are, No.19 admeasuring 1.24 ares and No.21 admeasuring 3.80 area in village Pachodala Tehsil Kotputli, as also for a declaration that the sale dated 16-10-1999 in favour of defendants No.2 and 3 by the defendant No.1 was void ab initio. The suit was filed on the basis of the entry made by the Assistant Settlement Officer in the record of rights during the settlement operations on 28-7-1978 recognising and consequent to the plaintiff's purported possession since Svt.2005 (i.e. 1938). It was alleged that despite not having any khatedari rights in the suit land following the registered sale deed on 3-7-1989, conveying his khatedari to the plaintiff, the defendant had effected an unauthorised sale on 16-10-1999 in favour of Ramesh Chand and Rohitash which was null and void and deserving to be so declared. It was prayed that the plaintiff be declared to be the khatedar of the suit land. The plaintiff in the suit relied upon various documents i.e. parcha lagan of Svt.2005, Girdawari slips of Svt. 2012 and 2031, Pass Book of Svt.2046, endorsement in his favour in the record of rights in Svt. 2037 to 2056, and sale deed dated 3-7- 1989.

(3.) A written statement of denial was filed by the defendant. It was stated that the plaintiff was never in possession of the suit land prior to Svt.2005 or any time thereafter. In fact the suit land was at all material time in the khatedari and possession of the defendant's father Sadhu Ram and so recorded in revenue records i.e. Jamabandi of Svt.2020, 2024, 2008 (i.e.1963, 1967, 1979). However in the year 1978 in collusion with Assistant Settlement Officer in the course of settlement proceedings, the plaintiff was without jurisdiction in wholly illegal manner shown by a purported endorsement as khatedar of the suit land. It was stated that the Assistant Settlement Officer had no authority to change the revenue entries in the record of rights but only could repeat them. The settlement department was duty bound to record the preexisting khatedari of Sadhu Ram, the father of the defendant No.1. It was further submitted that in any event the endorsement by the ASO in the record of rights was unsigned and therefore of no effect. Relying upon the documents Jamabandis of Svt. 2020, 2024, 2028 and Girdawaris of Svt. 2030, 2031, 2032 and 2033 it was prayed that suit be dismissed. A counter claim was filed against the plaintiff praying that name of plaintiff be removed from the record of rights and entries in the revenue record qua the suit land be corrected reflecting the defendant's khatedari.