GURUJANT RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ Petition is directed against the judgment of the Assistant Collector dated 31 -5 -1976 (Annex. D). and the judgment of the Revenue Appellate Authority dated 16 -11 -1976 (Annex. E) and the judgment of the Board of Revenue dated 22 -1 -1979 (Annex. F).

(2.) THE Petitioner who is a Jat Sikh was given in adoption on 19 -2 -1974, to one Shri Suraja Ram Meghwal who is a Scheduled Caste, by his father Karmail Singh according to the custom and provisions of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act. The Petitioner submits that after adoption he became member of the Scheduled Caste Meghwal of his adoptive father being the adopted son of Suraja Ram. The Petitioner purchased agricultural land measuring 15 bighas and 2 biswas from one Nanda Naik belonging to Scheduled caste on payment of Rs. 25,500/ - on 1 -6 -1974, after his adoption. The Petitioner obtained a Khatedari Patta from non -petitioner No. 5. A report was made against the petitioner under Section 175 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act for cancelling the sale deed of the disputed land in petitioner's favour on the ground that the transfer being against the express provisions of Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. On this complaint, the Assistant Collector vide judgment dated 31 -5 -1976 (Annexure D), held that the adoption of the Petitioner was not valid and he set aside the sale. Aggrieved against that judgment, the Petitioner preferred an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority and the Revenue Appellate Authority affirmed the findings of the Assistant Collector vide judgment dated 16 -11 -1976 Annx. E). Thereafter, the Petitioner preferred a second appeal before the Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue also affirmed the judgments of the both the Revenue courts. However, the Board of Revenue observed that if the original registered adoption deed had been presented by Gurnjant Singh alias Gurujant Ram in the course of the trial of the suit, then revenue courts would have been bound to accept that document as a valid piece of evidence supporting the contention that Gurujant Singh had, indeed been adopted by Surja Ram, but in the absence of the original document, as stated above, the revenue courts cannot be deemed to be bound to accept this fact.

(3.) BUT , I am not inclined to agree with the findings of the Board of Revenue that the original adoption deed was available the same might have been filed by the petitioner before the trial court or in the appellate court and in second appellate court. The same has not been filed, therefore, the Board of Revenue is justified in affirming the finding that in the absence of proof of adoption, the adoption cannot be accepted, and as much the transfer of land by Scheduled caste to a non -Scheduled caste is bad as it is in violation of the provisions of Section 43(b) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act.