BABU Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant petition has been filed by petitioners assailing proceedings which was initiated against them u/s. 91 of Land Revenue Act, 1956 and so also orders dated 28/11/1996 [Ann.5], dated 7/2/1997 [Ann.6], dated 17/9/1997 [Ann.7] and 22/10/1997 [Ann.8] whereby courts below while holding the petitioners to be guilty for encroaching the Government land, directed to dispossess the petitioners and at the same time, also passed order for their civil imprisonment for three months which was maintained at all the stages.

(2.) Petitioners' mother Smt. Bhagwan Dei W/o Late Shri Munshi, as alleged, was in possession of Sivai Chak land bearing Khasra No. 1710 0.16 Rakba since Samvat 2029. She made a request that her possession be regularised and Nayab Tehsildar, Bharatpur also sent its report Ann.2 dated 16/10/1975 in regard to her possession over the land in question and proceedings for regularisation of her possession over land were pending, present petitioners who are sons of widow in whose favour report was sent by Nayab Tehsildar, Bharatpur Ann.2 were served with a notice u/s. 91 of Land Revenue Act, 1956 for their dispossession and so also for appropriate action for encroaching the Government land. It is relevant to mention that Old Khasra No. 1710 was later on changed with New Khasra No. 992 and accordingly, notice u/s. 91 was served referring to Khasra No. 992. Petitioners submitted their reply to the notice and submitted that they were never in possession of the land in question and their mother has submitted application for regularisation claiming to be in possession over the land in question. Affidavit was also filed by their mother in which she also deposed that she is in possession of the disputed land of Khasra No. 992 0.16 Aer. However, Nayab Tehsildar, Bharatpur after taking into consideration the material on record recorded a finding that petitioners were in illegal possession of the Government land and while passing order for their dispossession, further ordered for their civil imprisonment for three months. Petitioners are only aggrieved vide order dated 28/11/1996 with respect to order of court below for sending them to civil imprisonment as they throughout submitted that they have never in possession of the land in question. Against the order of Nayab Tehsildar dated 28th November, 1996, petitioners preferred appeal before Additional Collector, Bharatpur and second appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority - both appeals were dismissed on 7th February, 1997 and 17th September, 1997 and revision which he preferred before Board of Revenue also met the same fate.

(3.) Counsel for petitioner contends that when they were not in possession of the Government land 0.16 Aer of Khasra No. 992 [new] and this was submitted by them throughout in reply to notice and at the same time, their mother submitted her own affidavit clearly deposed about her possession in proceedings initiated against them u/s. 91 of the Land Revenue Act and still holding them to be guilty in encroaching the Government land as a consequence whereof, inflicting penalty of civil imprisonment is not legally sustainable.