TAS RAM Vs. B O R

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the defendant writ petitioner appellant, who has lost in all the courts, starting from the Court of learned S.D.O., uptill the learned Single Judge.

(2.) The necessary facts are, that the plaintiff Thana Ram, whose legal representatives are the private respondents, and who shall hereafter be referred to as the plaintiff, filed the suit in the Court of S.D.O., Churu, in the year 1969, alleging interalia, that in village Mathori Tehsil Churu there is land bearing Khasra No. 143 measuring 134 bigha 18 biswa, in the Khatedari of the plaintiff, according to the settlement of Samvat year 2002. In the subsequent settlement of the year 1968 Khasra numbers were changed to Khasra No. 287, 288, 295, 337, 338 and 339. It was pleaded that the plaintiff is continuing in possession of the land, having been taken from Jagirdar Nathu Singh. It is alleged that notwithstanding this, Nathu Singh took possession of the land, and instructed, that the revenue of the land be paid to the defendant Kishna Ram instead of Nathu Singh. Then, it is alleged that taking advantage of the simplicity, and illiteracy of the plaintiff, defendant got entered certain portion of the land in the Girdawari, in his name, and on coming across the papers of the settlement of the year 1968, the plaintiff learnt about it that he has wrongly got sanctioned mutation from the Gram Panchayat on 24.3.1960, with respect to 90 bigha 8 biswas portion of land, in collusion with Patwari Halka and Sarpanch, purportedly under Section 19 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, while Panchayat has no right to sanction such mutation, nor any notice of it was given to the plaintiff. It was alleged, that this mutation came to his notice on 13.11.68. Then, he applied for certified copy of Girdawari, then he obtained copies from Settlement Department. It was alleged that the defendant denied the title of the plaintiff. It was alleged that in Samvat Year 2022 the plaintiff had kept the land fellow for grazing the cattle. Then, in the year 2023, eastern 20 bighas portion of land was trespassed by the defendant, and then the defendant declined to deliver back the possession. Thus, the suit was filed for declaration of plaintiff s Khatedari rights, and for possession of 20 bighas of land from the defendant.

(3.) The defendant contested the suit, contending interalia, that out of 130 bigha 18 biswa of land 90 bigha 8 biswa of land is in the Khatedari of the defendant, and not the plaintiff, which bears Khasra No. 190/143, and that the defendant is cultivating the land. It was pleaded that during the past settlement, and present settlement when the plaintiff did not cultivate the land, he cannot be treated to be Khatedar in the eye of law, nor is he Khatedar. It was pleaded that the defendant has always paid the land revenue, and is in cultivatory possession continuously since Samvat year 1999, which is duly entered in the revenue records, being Girdwari, Fard Khata, and Misal Bandobast etc. The mutation was contended to be validly sanctioned, and that, long silence of the plaintiff is indicative of the fact, that the plaintiff is out and out to harass the defendant, at the instance of some other person, and is raising false dispute. It is unbelievable that the name of the defendant was wrongly entered in the Girdawari in Samvat year 2000, and 2009 onwards, which did not come to the knowledge of the plaintiff. It was denied that in Samvat year 2022, 100 bighas of land was kept fellow, rather the plaintiff was never in possession, in Samvat year 2022 it was famine year. It was pleaded that the defendant had cleared the field, but since it did not rain, sowing was not undertaken. Then, it was declared as famine year. It was maintained that since Samvat year 1999 the defendant is continuously cultivating the land himself, and cannot be said to be a trespasser. Then, plea of limitation was also raised. It was pleaded that the plaintiff is of quarrelsome nature, and is projecting threat of litigation, involving the defendant s land at the instigation of others. It was pleaded that the defendant had taken the land from Jagirdar in Samvat 1999 for cultivation, and since then he is continuously cultivating, and paying the land revenue. It was then pleaded that in the present settlement, the plaintiff, in collusion with the settlement authorities, taking advantage of the absence of the defendant, tried to have his name recorded, which attempt was foiled up. Thus, it was prayed that the suit be dismissed.