Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Amar Singh vs State Of Rajasthan on 17 September, 2019
Author: Dinesh Mehta
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5595/2019 Amar Singh S/o Himmat Singh, aged about 68 years, by Caste Rajput, R/o Baitina Tehsil Pokaran, District Jaisalmer.
----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan, through Tehsildar Pokaran, Tehsil Pokaran, District Jaisalmer.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gourav Thanvi
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Judgment
17/09/2019
The present writ petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order dated 14.09.2018, passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer, whereby petitioner's appeal has been rejected.
Briefly narrated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a suit under Section 88 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1956 for declaration of his Khatedari rights with respect to land admeasuring 60 Bighas in Khasra No.126 of village Baitina, Tehsil Pokaran, District Jaisalmer, with the assertion that the land in question is possessed by him/his father since ages, however due to inadvertence/official lapse, the same could not be recorded in their name, at the time of settlement.
The petitioner's suit came to be rejected by the Assistant Collector, Pokaran vide order dated 10.10.2006, interalia, with (Downloaded on 18/09/2019 at 08:53:26 PM) (2 of 4) [CW-5595/2019] observation that the petitioner had not produced any documentary evidence to evince his possession.
Appeal thereagainst filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed by the Revenue Appellate Authority vide its order dated 12.04.2007, reiterating the finding so recorded by the learned Trial Court. The Appellate Authority observed that the appellant wants to get declaration of Khatedari rights in relation to the land, on which he is having possession, simply as an encroacher.
In an appeal filed thereagainst, the Division Bench of the Board of Revenue also affirmed the aforesaid finding, while dismissing petitioner's appeal, vide its order dated 14.09.2018. The Board of Revenue also observed that the petitioner has not produced any documentary evidence in his favour, so as to get declaration of Khatedari rights, in relation to the contentious land.
Learned counsel for the petitioner assailing the order passed by the Courts below, contended that, true it is, that the petitioner does not have any documentary evidence to show his title over the land but he had led enough oral evidence before the Trial Court to reach to a conclusion that the petitioner was having possession over the subject land, at the time of settlement. He argued that the Trial Court despite having framed the issues, has not decided the same separately. He argued that the Courts below have not dealt with the evidence and contentions issue wise and dismissed the suit summarily. The Appellate Court too had fallen in the same error by not appreciating petitioner's argument in this regard.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record.
(Downloaded on 18/09/2019 at 08:53:26 PM)
(3 of 4) [CW-5595/2019] Concededly, the petitioner failed to lead any ocular evidence in support of his possession over the subject land at the time of or prior to the settlement. The petitioner's entire premise has been that he/his father have been enjoying possession of the land since ages. They have asserted that due to inadvertence and official lapse, record did not depict their name.
Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and the material available on record, this Court does not find any case in petitioner's favour, so as to declare him entitled for Khatedari rights in respect to contentious 60 Bighas land. Petitioner's own case is that in the year 2003, he realized this fact that the land, which is in his possession, has not been recorded in his name, when the settlement took place - which was way back in the year 1956. The petitioner has not even produced any Bigori (receipt of payment of land revenue) and Khasra Girdawari etc. to show that he has been cultivating the land, in support of his assertion of possession. Even the oral evidence led by the petitioner is not sufficient to prove that he and his propositus were in cultivatory possession of the land prior to settlement. Petitioner's solitary oral evidence cannot be held sufficient for the purpose of declaration of Khatedari rights. Petitioner's suit suffered from delay and laches, given the fact that he has claimed that he/his father were in cultivatory possession of the land since settlement.
In the present factual matrix, the Courts below were perfectly justified in dismissing the suit filed by the petitioner for declaration of Khatedari rights.
(Downloaded on 18/09/2019 at 08:53:26 PM)
(4 of 4) [CW-5595/2019] This Court does not find any substance in the present writ petition, for which it is dismissed.
Stay petition also stands dismissed.
(DINESH MEHTA),J 19-Ramesh/-
(Downloaded on 18/09/2019 at 08:53:26 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)