JASWANT SINGH Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the judgments dated 01.07.2002 & 28.07.2001 both passed by the Board of Revenue ('the Board', for short), the judgment dated 09.07.1997 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority ('the RAA' for short) and the judgment dated 31.07.1986 passed by the Additional Collector.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner purchased a land from one Bhanwar Lal on 02.05.1955 against sale consideration of Rs. 95/- by a written document. Since then, the petitioner claims to be in continuous and exclusive physical possession of the said land. After the death of Sh. Bhanwar Lal, both his sons, Sh. Bheru Lal (defendant No. 1) and Sh. Prabhu Lal (defendant No. 2), wanted to dispossess the petitioner from the said land. Therefore, the petitioner filed a suit before the Additional Collector for declaring him as the "Khatedar" of the said land. The defendants filed reply to the suit denying the document of sale and alleging that the petitioner is an encroacher upon their land. On 31.07.1986, the learned Additional Collector dismissed the petitioner's suit and passed an eviction order against him. Against the said judgment dated 31.07.1986, the petitioner filed an appeal before the RAA. However, vide order dated 09.07.1997 the RAA dismissed the appeal. Consequently, the petitioner preferred a second appeal before the Board challenging the judgment of the RAA. But, the Board dismissed the second appeal, vide order dated 28.07.2001. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a review petition, which was also dismissed on 01.07.2002. Hence, being aggrieved by the judgments mentioned above, he has filed the present petition before this Court.

(3.) A bare perusal of the impugned judgments clearly show that all the courts below have given a concurrent finding that the document dated 02.05.1955 allegedly entered between Sh. Bhanwar Lal and the petitioner has not been proved by the petitioner. Therefore, the Courts below had dismissed the suit, the appeal, the second appeal and the review petition. In the opinion of this Court, since a concurrent finding has been given on a question of fact, the same cannot be interfered with under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. There is no perversity or illegality in the impugned judgments. Therefore, this petition is devoid of any merit. It is, hereby, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.