MISHRI LAL Vs. RAM KHILADI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE case of the Petitioner is that he was Khatedar tenant of agricultural land bearing Khasra No. 190 measuring 20 Bighas 10 Biswa and Khasra No. 191 measuring 8 Biswas Situated village Allapun Tehsil Bayana, District Bharatpur. According to the petitioner, he was in cultivatory possession of the above land as such he became Khatedar in Samvat 2012 on the coming into force of Section 15 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (here in after referred to as 'the Act') The Patwari of the village made a wrong entry in Khasra Girdawari of Samvat 2015 by mentioning that half of Khasra No. 190 was of Kanchan and wrongly entered Kanchan as Khatedar of the land. The Tehsildar made an inquiry and after site inspection in Samvat 2017 made the correction by entering the name of the petitioner in place of Kanchan. The Patwari again in Samvat 2018 wrongly entered the names of Ramkhilari, Lahasaniya and Ghamandi sons of Kanchan and the said entry continued upto Samvat 2021. These person also threatened to take possession under the garb of the above wrong entries as such the petitioner filed a suit for declaration that he was Khatedar tenant of the entire land and the wrong entries should be corrected and the respondents be restrained from entering into above land. respondents

(2.) LEARNED Sub -Divisional Officer, Bayana by judgment dated November 18,1970, (Ex. 1) dismissed the suit filed by the petitioner. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority. The Revenue Appellate Authority held that petitioner was in cultivatory possession of the land as Gair Mauroosi Kashtkar from Samvat 2004. It also found that the wrong entry of Samvat 2015 in favour of Kanchan had been corrected in Samvat 2017 and the petitioner -plaintiff was in continuous cultivatory possession from Samvat 2004 to 2016. It was also held that the petitioner had been recorded as Gair Mauroosi tenant and as such became Khatedar in Samvat 2012 under Section 15 of the Act. The Revenue Appellate Authority as such allowed the appeal and decreed the suit filed by the petitioner vide its judgment dated October 1, 1977 (Ex. 2).

(3.) MR . Agrawal, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the judgment of the Board of Revenue suffers from errors apparent on the face of record and is liable to be quashed. It was submitted that the name of the petitioner is entered in all the revenue records including Jamabandis which were prepared in Samvat 2005, 2009, 2013 and upto Samvat 2029. All these Jamabandis, were in the records of the Sub -Divisional Officer, Bayana but all these documents were not produced by the plaintiff as it would have resulted in making the record bulky. The record of the Girdawari and rent receipts were already produced. The defendants, on the other hand, did not produce any Jamabandi or revenue record in their favour nor could show their possession at any time over the lands in question. The petitioner has filed Jamabandi Ex. 4 of Samvat 2005, Jamabandi Ex. 5 of Samvat 2009 and Jamabandi Ex. 6 of Samvat 2013, which all go to show that the name of the petitioner Mishri has been shown in Column No. 5 of tenant. It was thus submitted that the Board of Revenue committed a serious error of Jaw in holding that khasra girdawari was not to be relied upon in absence of Jamabandi and without any basis drew a wrong inference against the plaintiff that Jamabandi was not in his favour.