BHAGWANA Vs. KAJOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant intra court appeal has been filed against order of the learned Single Judge impugned dated 12-5-2016.

(2.) At the outset it may be noticed that the present appellant is the original plaintiff filed a revenue suit under sections 88 and 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act before the Sub-Divisional Officer for declaration and injunction against the defendant respondent Kajod now deceased and represented by the legal heirs, for the subject property in question and initially 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 plaintiffs purported possession since Samwat-2005 i.e. 1938.

(3.) The plaintiff relied upon various documents and in counter the defendants also filed their written statement and the finding was recorded by the SDO that the plaintiff was never in possession of the suit land prior to Samwat-2005 or at any point of time thereafter and that suit was dismissed vide judgment dated 21-5-2002 and on appeal being preferred before the Revenue Appellate Authority the suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 20-1-2006 and that came to be further challenged in appeal before the Board of Revenue at the instance of the defendants and the Board of Revenue vide judgment and decree dated 9-2-2016 set aside the judgment of the Revenue Appellate Authority dated 20-1-2006 and restored the judgment and decree of the SDO dated 21-5-2002. The appellant before the learned Single Judge raised manifold submissions but the question raised for consideration was nothing but re-appreciation of the evidence recorded by the revenue courts below and the learned Single Judge after hearing the parties and in exercise of power and limited scope u/Art.226 and 227 of the Constitution finally arrived to the conclusion that the finding recorded by the Board of Revenue does not require interference and even in the present intra court appeal preferred at the instance of the original plaintiff, the arguments raised for our consideration is nothing but reiteration of the submissions made and considered by the learned Single Judge and the counsel for appellant has further tried to persuade this Court to re-appreciate the evidence on the basis of which finding came to be recorded by the revenue authority and the learned Single Judge has concurrent with the view of the Board of Revenue while dismissing the writ petition under order impugned dated 12-5-2016.