VIJAY KUMAR Vs. THE BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the origin 1 petitioner Kistoorchand who is now represented by successor in title Vijaykumar challenges the correctness of the decision of the Board of Revenue for Rajaathan, Ajmer (which will hereinafter be referred to 1963. Kistoora vs. Kistoorchand. Before coming to this Court, the petitioner filed a review application before the Board. But the same was dismissed by order dated August 14, 1967. Exhibit P/4) Hence both the orders of the Board dated 11th July, 1967 & August, 1967 have been assailed by the petitioner. The facts relevant for decision of this application may be briefly stated as follows. The petitioner Kistoorchand Patani, since deceased, brought a suit for ejectment in the Court of Assistant Collector Kishangarh against Kistoora and his son Likhma respondents No. 2 and 3 under Sec. 175 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (which will hereinafter be referred to as 'the Act') with respect to agricultural land Khasra Nos. 251, 252 to 262 380 to 382, 251/6013 and 330/6014 situated in Kishangarh on the that the same to respondent No. 2 Kistoora on October 23, 1950 for a fixed rent of Rs. 51/ - per annum by a Lease Deed bearing the same date but Kistoora had illegally transferred the same to respondent No. 4 Chandigarh for a consideration of Rs. 5000/ and hence the aforesaid respondents were liable to be ejected. Kistoora, Likhma and their transferee Chandigarh (who will hereinafter be referred to as the respondents') pleased, inter alia, that Kistoora was a sub -tenant who had become a Khatedar tenant under Sec. 19(1)(a) of the Tenancy Act. After recording the evidence produced by the parties on the issues framed by him, the learned Assistant Collector, by his judgment dated June 1, 1962 (Ex P/1) came to the conclusion that Kistoora had judgment khatedar tenant and was consequently not liable to be ejected. In this view of the matter, he dismissed the petitioner's suit. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Assistant Collector, Kistoora filed appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority. Jaipur which, by its judgment dated June 4, 1963 (Ex P/2) set aside the judgment and decree by the Assistant Collector and decreed the petitioner's suit against the respondent for ejectment from the land in dispute. The respondent then filed a second appeal before the Board which reversed the dispute. The judgment by the Revenue Appellate Authority and restored the judgment by the Assistant Collector and thereby dismissed the petitioner's suit.

(2.) Before we embark upon the consideration of the writ application on merits, we would like to dispose of a preliminary objection raised by Mr. Rajnarain Munshi, learned counsel for respondent No. 4 Chandrasingh. He has submitted that the petitioner has made false averments in the case knowing them to be false and, therefore, by his conduct he has disentitled himself to any relief to be granted by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction. It is submitted that the possession of land in question had been delivered to Chandrasingh as far back as on October 30, 1967, yet Smt. Sugnidevi widow of Kistoorchand, the original petitioner, during the course of proceedings of this writ application, asserted her possession over the land in question on March 12 1974 and filed a false affidavit in support of this assertion. In support of his contention he has relied upon M/s. M. Haji Mohd. Ismail vs. The Dy. CTO : AIR 1970 Mad 422 K Ananthan Pillai vs. The State of Kerala : AIR 1968 Ker 234, G. Appukkuttan Pillai v/s. Government of India : AIR 1970 Ker 110, Aijaz Uddin v/s. Taxing Officer, High Court and others : AIR 1966 All 227 and Mangilal Sharma v Appellate Tribunal of State Transport Authority, Raj. : AIR 1957 Raj 167.

(3.) It may be observed that a protracted litigation has been going on between the parties even on the execution side in pursuance of the judgments passed by the Revenue Courts on the appellate side and the land has been changing hands. Mr. Rajnarain's contention is that the land in question was mutated in the name of Chandrasingh in the year 1960 as evidenced by Parcha Khatauni (Exhibit P/5) and the petitioner's objection regarding correctness of Exhibit P 5 was rejected. In support of his contention Mr. Rajnarain placed reliance on Exhibit P19 (statement of Kistoorchand) and also on the judgment Exhibit P 1. However, he admits that after the decision by the Revenue Appellate Authority (Exhibition P 2), Chandrasingh was dispossessed some time in 1963. However, it is asserted on behalf of Chandrasingh, respondent No. 4, that he was again put in possession of the land in dispute vide documents Exhibit P 7 to Exhibit P/10 after the dismissal of the suit by the Board on July 11, 1967 (Exhibit P/3). There is no doubt that this Court dismissed the stay petition filed by the petitioner on November 27, 1967. The order dated November 27, 1967 dismissing the stay application reads as follows: -