TEJU Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition challenges the impugned order of the Board of Revenue dated September 26, 1972 by which it held that the appeal of the petitioners has abated in entirety.

(2.) PLAINTIFF respondent filed a suit against the present petitioners and some other defendants on the allegation that the petitioners had forcibly occupied the land which the plaintiffs clairn in their ownership. The disputed land was comprised in three Khatas, namely, Khata No. 116/1, Khata No. 117 and Khata no. 122-1. The defendants in their reply denied that they had forcibly occupied the land. On the contrary, they pleaded that they were in occupation of the separate pieces of land for a number of years. In the written statement, the possession of different defendants to different numbers was separately mentioned as being in their possession since long. The trial Court by its judgment dated April 20, 1956, dismissed the suit. The appellate Court accepted the appeal and remanded the case. However, the second appeal before the Board of Revenue was accepted which set aside the order of the revenue Appellate Authority and directed it to record evidence and give a fresh decision. In pursuance of this, the Revenue Appellate Authority decided the matter afresh and gave a judgment dated September 17, 1964. By this judgment, it was held that the plaintiffs had proved their title in the suit land mentioned in Khata No. 117. Regarding Khata No. 116/1, it found that plaintiffs have failed to prove their case excepting Survey No. 2589. Regarding Khata No. 122/1, it found that the defendants have proved their possession of Survey No. 2705 and held the possession of defendants as trespasser in the rest of the land. It consequently passed a decree in favour of the plaintiffs directing that plaintiffs be put in possession of all Survey Numbers coming under Khata No. 117 and a Survey No. 2539 in Khata No. 116/1, and of all Survey Numbers excepting Survey No. 2705 in Khata No 122/1. It also decreed that the plaintiffs be awarded compensation to the extent of three times the annual rent of the suit land which are ordered to be put in their possession from the date of the dispossession to the date of restoration.

(3.) ALL the defendants filed an appeal before the Board of Revenue. During the pendency of the appeal, three of the defendant-appellants, namely, Kachra son of Amarji, Dala son of Amarji and Bhimji s/o Lalji died. No legal representatives of the said deceased persons were brought on record within time. The Board of revenue by its order dated July 27, 1971 held that the appeal had abated in so far as the deceased appellants were concerned and left the matter, whether the appeal could proceed to be decided later on- Subsequently, the Division Bench of the Board of Revenue by the impugned order held that the effect of not impleading the legal representatives of the deceased appellants Kachra son of amarji. Dala son of Amarji and Bhimji son of Lalji is that the appeal abates in its entirety. It is against this order that the present writ petition has been filed.