RAWATA AND ANOTHER Vs. JAGMAL AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have challenged the judgment passed by the Board of Revenue dated 12.1.1993 whereby the Board while reversing the judgment of the Revenue Appellate Authority, Sikar dated 7.1.1989 restored the judgment of the Assistant Collector, Chirawa dated 5.9.1988 and the subsequent order dated 8.4.1993 whereby the review petition of the respondents was rejected.

(2.) Factual matrix of the case is that the plaintiff-non-petitioner nos. 1 to 11 filed a suit for declaration against the petitioner and non-petitioners nos. 12 to 29 before SDO, Jhunjhunu on 30.6.1987. Subject matter of the dispute was the land comprising in khasra no. 9/2 measuring 3 bigha 10 biswa, khasra no. 13/1 measuring 102 bigha 10 biswa and khasra no. 163 measuring 8 bigha 1 biswa in all 114 bigha 1 biswa which was situated in Village Farat Tehsil Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu. The plaintiff-non-petitioner nos. 1 to 11 and non-petitioners nos. 12 to 28 were khatedar tenant of the said land. In the revenue suit that was fled, it was asserted that plaintiffs and defendants were belonging to the same family. Disputed land was their ancestral property and parties were in continuous possession of the same from the time of their ancestors. It was stated that Ganpat and Chandra Ram were the elders in the family and as such karta thereof. During lifetime of Chandra Ram, Gopal and Ganpat the parties were cultivating the disputed lands jointly and after their death by mutual arrangement. In that situation, the legal partition of the land between the parties did not take place. It was stated that mutation no.64 of the disputed land was entered in the name of Chandra Ram S/o Ramlal without the knowledge of the plaintiffs and contrary to their interest. According to plaintiffs, they came to know about this attestation of the mutation only few days before filing of the revenue suit. This was done by collusion and without any basis. According to petitioners, all legal -heirs of Chandra Ram, Gopal and Ganpat had equal share in the disputed lands and the ancestors of each of these three were entitled to ⅓rd share out of the total land. According to the petitioners, although the service of notice was not effected on them, yet the learned Assistant Collector, Chirawa ordered ex-pane proceedings against them on 30.8.1988 and thereafter fixed the matter for evidence of the plaintiffs and on their evidence being recorded, finally passed the judgment and decree on 5.9.1988. The petitioners and the defendant Rajaram submitted an application on 28.9.1988 under Order 9 Rule 13 of Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the ex-pane decree and simultaneously they also filed an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Sikar. While the application was pending, the appellate authority allowed the appeal vide judgment 7.1.1989 thereby setting aside the judgment and decree dated 5.8.1988 passed by the Assistant Collector. In that view of the matter, the defendants did not press their application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside ex-parte judgment and the application was dismissed as having become infructuous. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 7.1.1989 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Sikar, plaintiff-non-petitioner no.1 to 11 filed appeal before the Board of Revenue. During pendency of the appeal, petitioners filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 Code of Civil Procedure for permission to adduce additional evidence and to place on record copies of certain revenue records. That application however was rejected by the Board of Revenue on 1.8.1991. The petitioners thereafter submitted another application under Order 8 Rule 1 and 9 read with Sec. 151 Code of Civil Procedure on 10.8.1992 seeking permission to file written statement which was also rejected by order of the Board of Revenue dated 24.11.1992. The Board of Revenue finally allowed the appeal under its judgment dated 12.1.1993 thereby setting aside judgment of the Revenue Appellate Authority, Sikar dated 7.1.1989. Subsequently, the review petition filed by the petitioners was also rejected by order dated 8.4.1993. It is against the backdrop of these facts that the present writ petition has been filed with the aforesaid prayers.

(3.) I have heard Shri K.K. Mehrishi, the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners and Shri R.S. Purohit and Shri Ajay Gupta for the respondents.