KESARI LAL Vs. SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER RAMGAJMANDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed against the judgment of the Board of Revenue against the proceedings under ceiling law which were started against one Smt. Chandrakanta under Chapter III-B added to the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter to be called the 'old law' ).

(2.) THE land was originally recorded in the name of one Smt. Gulab Bai, who had adopted Govindlal, son of petitioner No. 1. After the death of Smt. Gulab Bai, the land was recorded in the name of Govindlal and after his death, in the name of Smt. Chandrakanta, who was recorded as the Khatedar tenant. Since she was holding the land in excess of the ceiling area, notices were issued to her and the present petitioners joined the proceedings and claimed one-fourth share in favour of each of the three petitioners and one-fourth share in favour of Bam Narain, another son of Kesharilal. An effort was made before the authorities to contend that the petitioners were in possession of the land since 1957 on the basis of one mutation entry made in that year, though that entry was not repeated subsequently. The authorities below have come to the conclusion that in view of the entry in the name of Smt. Chandrakanta as a khatedar tenant, the land must be presumed to belong to her and on that basis surplus area has been determined under Chapter IIIB of the Rajasthan Tenancy act, taking Smt. Chandrakanta as a Khatedar tenant. The petitioners having failed in the proceedings before the Board of Revenue, have come up to this court in this writ petition.

(3.) MR. Garg tried to reopen the finding of fact by the authorities below by urging that the petitioners have been in possession of the land since 1957, and even earlier, and that the entry in the revenue record in the name of Smt. Chandrakanta could not deprive them of their title to land. We are afraid, this is a finding of fact, and it is not open to us to reopen that finding in the present proceedings. The authorities below have correctly stated that the entries in the revenue record show that the land was entered in the Khatedari of Smt. Chandrakanta and the petitioners have not been able to rebut that presumption. We also find that when the petitioners appeared in escheat proceedings before the Additional Collector, Kota, in 1972, they made a statement in which it was stated that they were the legal representatives of smt. Chandrakanta and therefore the escheat proceedings could not be taken. This shows that the petitioners accepted that they were the heirs of chandrakanta, which admission obviously shows that they were not claiming any independent right to the land. It is not understood why, if claim of the petitioners was that they had independent right apart from the right to claim the land as legal representatives of Smt. Chandrakanta, the said claim should not have been put before the Additional Collector. Be that as it may, as the authorities have come to the finding of fact that the land was in Khatedari of smt. Chandrakanta the said finding cannot be interfered with.