DHEER SINGH Vs. AMAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant writ petition has been filed challenging the order of the Board of Revenue dated 19.5.88 contained in Ex. 5 to the writ petition by which the Board has set aside the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority dated 22.9.82 contained in Ex. 4 to. the petition.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to the petition are that one Jeewan Singh was the owner of the agricultural land measuring 49 bighas and 9 biswas situated in the Revenue Estate of village Palana District Bikaner. His wife had died and he had no issue. Jeewan Singh adopted the present petitioner, Dheer Singh when he was 5 -6 years of age. The adoption took place on 7.7.1973 and the adoption deed was duly registered on 27.8.73 (Ex. 1) and all the formalities which are required under the law for adoption were also completed. Petitioner Dheer Singh started living with Jeewan Singh after adoption but Jeewan Singh died on 1st. Feb., 1974 leaving behind only survivor minor adopted son Dheer Singh. Respondents No. 1 to 4 alongwith one Smt. Bal Kanwar (whose name was subsequently deleted from the array of respondents vide order dt. 9.9.82) claiming to be the close relatives of said Shri Jeewan Singh moved an application before the Gram Sarpanch that the land belonging to Jeewan Singh should be mutated in their names. Vide order dated 15.4.74 passed by the village Sarpanch, the land belonging to Jeewan Singh was mutated in the names of respondents No. 1 to 4. The present petitioner Dheer Singh being aggrieved and dissatisfied, preferred an appeal against the order dt. 15.4.74. before the collector but the same was rejected, being time barred, vide order dated 14.10.74. Petitioner preferred second appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority which was allowed vide order dated 22.7.75. The Revenue Appellate Authority quashed the mutation order dated 15.4.75 in favour of respondents No. 1 to 4 and remanded the case to the village Sarpanch to decide it de novo. Respondent No. l to 4 being aggrieved, filed a revision against the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority dated 22.7.75 before the Board of Revenue which was dismissed on 14.9.79 (Ex. 2). In the meanwhile, as there was no interim order in favour of contesting respondents and the Authority competent to record mutation has been changed from Sarpanch to Tehsildar, the Tehsildar vide his order dated 28.7.76 ordered the mutation in favour of the present petitioner Dheer Singh. This order was not challenged by the contesting respondents and it has become final.

(3.) BEING aggrieved, present petitioner preferred an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority which was allowed vide order dated 22.9.82contained in Ex. 4 to the writ petition, holding that the judgment of the S.D.O. was passed on the basis of revenue record wherein names of respondents No. 1 to 4 had been entered into because of the mutation order passed by the Sarpanch on 15.4.74 and the S.D.O. failed to appreciate that the said order had subsequently been set aside and mutation was made in favour of the petitioner vide order dated 28.7.76 and the same had become final and as the matter remained subjudice, the order dated 15.4.74 was not final and it also failed to appreciate the statutory provisions enshrined in Section 40 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter called the Act 1955). which provides for succession by inheritance in case a person dies intestate and provisions of Section 16 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (hereinafter called the Act 1956), which provide for presumption of bonafide and correctness of the registered documents and as the adoption deed has been registered, there was a presumption of the correctness and genuineness of adoption deed. Nobody had even tried to rebut the same by producing any evidence whatsoever. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the respondent No. 1 to 4 preferred appeal before the Board of Revenue under Section 224 of the Act 1955 and the same was allowed vide judgment and order dt. 19.5.88 contained in Ex. 5 to the writ petition.