GAJAN SINGH Vs. ASSISTANT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner by this writ petition has challenged the order of the Assistant Collector, Ganganagar, dated 27 -11 -1977, Anx. 1 the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority dated 13 -2 -1977, Anx. 2 and the order of the Board of Revenue dated 28 -7 -1980, Anx. 3.

(2.) THE petitioner was in cultivatory possession of 12 bighas 10 biswas of land in Sq. No. 43 and 12 bighas and 10 biswas in Sq. No: 45, i.e. total 23 bighas 10 biswas. Respondeat No. 4 filed a suit against the petitioner under Section 183 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for evicting the petitioner from the aforesaid land. Respondent No. 4 contended that he was allotted the suit land in s.q. No. 43 and 45 in the year 1959 by the Custodian of Evacuee Property. The land in question was sub -let by respondent No. 4 on yearly premium of Rs. 1000/ -per year to the petitioner on June 1, 1960 with the stipulation that he would return the possession of the land in question after harvesting the Rabi crops. The petitioner refused to return the possession of the land and therefore respondent No. 4 brought this suit for dispossessing the petitioner, as a trespasser. Respondent No. 4 further averred that he was a tenant in the laud in question and therefore, prayed for decree for possession and for damages for three years i.e. 1965 -66, 1966 -67 and 1967 -68 at the rate of Rs. 3,000/ -per year. The petitioner contested the suit before the Assistant Collector, Ganganagar and submitted that he was not a trespasser, he is in possession of the land in question as a tenant. It was alleged that respondent No. 4 was not recorded as Khud Kasht holder of the land and the land was in possession of the petitioner. It was further submitted that the land was the property of the Custodian Department, Government of India and the Revenue Courts and Civil Courts were not competent to entertain the suit.

(3.) MR . Mehta, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that at the time when the suit was filed, the respondent No. 4 had no sanad in his favour issued by the Custodian Department, and therefore, the suit would not have been brought by respondent No. 4 under Section 183 of the Act.