Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Vijay Singh And Ors vs Bor, Ajmer And Ors on 12 May, 2023
Author: Nupur Bhati
Bench: Nupur Bhati
[2023/RJJD/013701]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14992/2016
1. Vijay Singh Adopted S/o Shri Nathu Singh, R/o-Rampura
Patta Jharia, Tehsil And District-Churu
2. Ramchandra Singh S/o Shri Magan Singh, R/o-Rampura
Patta Jharia, Tehsil And District-Churu
3. Kan Singh S/o Shri Magan Singh, R/o-Rampura Patta
Jharia, Tehsil And District-Churu
4. Purni Kanwar W/o Late Shri Magan Singh, R/o-Rampura
Patta Jharia, Tehsil And District-Churu
5. Dilip Singh S/o Shri Rugh Singh, R/o-Rampura Patta
Jharia, Tehsil And District-Churu
6. Arjun Singh S/o Shri Magan Singh, R/o-Rampura Patta
Jharia, Tehsil And District-Churu
7. Pratap Singh S/o Shri Dhanne Singh, R/o-Rampura Patta
Jharia, Tehsil And District-Churu
8. Shobh Singh S/o Shri Dhanne Singh, R/o-Rampura Patta
Jharia, Tehsil And District-Churu
9. Bhanwar Singh S/o Shri Dhanne Singh, R/o-Rampura
Patta Jharia, Tehsil And District-Churu
10. Dalu Singh S/o Shri Rugh Singh, R/o-Rampura Patta
Jharia, Tehsil And District-Churu
11. Shrawan Kanwar S/o Shri Rugh Singh, R/o-Rampura Patta
Jharia, Tehsil And District-Churu
12. Lichhman Singh S/o Shri Magan Singh, R/o-Rampura
Patta Jharia, Tehsil And District-Churu
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Board Of Revenue, Ajmer Through Its Registrar
2. Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner
3. S.D.O., Churu
4. The State Of Rajasthan Through Tehsildar, Churu
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.S. Saluja, assisted by Mr. Achraj
Singh.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Harshit Bhurani
(Downloaded on 15/05/2023 at 10:21:58 PM)
[2023/RJJD/013701] (2 of 16) [CW-14992/2016]
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI
JUDGMENT
RESERVED ON :- 05/05/2023 PRONOUNCED ON :- 12/05/2023
1. The instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioners-plaintiffs under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:-
"(A) by an appropriate writ, order the impugned judgment dated 04.07.2016 passed by the respondent no.1 learned Board of Revenue, Ajmer, (ANNEX-9) may kindly be declared illegal and be quashed;
(B) by an appropriate writ, order the impugned judgment and decree dated 26.03.2016 passed by the respondent no.3 learned SDO Churu, Ajmer, (ANNEX-6) may kindly be declared illegal and be quashed;
(C) Any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case, may kindly be passed in favor of the petitioner;
(D) Cost of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner."
2. Brief facts of the case are that:-
The original suit was filed by the predecessor of the petitioner-plaintiff and during the pendency of litigation Dhanne Singh, Rugh Singh and Magan Singh died at their native Village Rampura Patta Jharia. The petitioners-plaintiff Nos.2, 7 and 8 are legal heirs of Rugh Singh, the petitioners-plaintiff Nos.4, 5 and 6 are legal heirs of Dhanne Singh and the petitioners-plaintiff Nos.3, 9, 10, 11 and 12 are legal heirs of Magan Singh, and the present (Downloaded on 15/05/2023 at 10:21:58 PM) [2023/RJJD/013701] (3 of 16) [CW-14992/2016] writ petition has been filed by the petitioners-plaintiffs as a right to survival of the suit in the present litigation.
3. On 28.01.1994, father of the petitioners-plaintiffs Nos.2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 and remaining petitioners-plaintiffs, have filed a suit for declaration and injunction before the Court of SDO, Churu regarding the land bearing Khasra No.37.189 and 191 rakba 41 bighas and 17 biswas which is henceforth called "land in question", which is cultivated by Late Shri Mangal Singh (Grandfather of the petitioners-plaintiffs) before settlement operation. One Shri Mangal Singh died on 25.09.1992 and thereafter, till date, his legal heirs cultivated the land in question. A wrong entry was made in the name of Anna Ram and Mala Ram and consequently, the land in question was entered into the name of State Government.
4. That the petitioners-plaintiffs further pleaded in the suit that the land in question is still in possession and till today, they are cultivating the land in question. Respondent No.4, threatens to dispossess the petitioner-plaintiff from the land in question and therefore, they are entitled to get the decree of declaration and perpetual injunction.
5. After the registration of the suit, the respondent No.4 had filed reply to the suit wherein the respondent admitted that the petitioners-plaintiffs were having record of possession in their name from samvat 2012 to 2032, but not in proper performa.
6. During course of the trial, PW-3 Jessa Ram son of Valla Ram, categorically stated that his agricultural land is situated next to the land in question and he also adduced that the petitioners- plaintiffs are in possession of the land in question. Moreover, PW-4 (Downloaded on 15/05/2023 at 10:21:58 PM) [2023/RJJD/013701] (4 of 16) [CW-14992/2016] Ladhu Ram son of Purna Ram also stated the same that the petitioners-plaintiffs are in possession of the land in question.
7. The State Government also issued notice under Section 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (allotment of land for agricultural purpose) Rules, 1970, to the petitioners-plaintiffs.
8. The State of Rajasthan did not adduce any evidence in defence before the trial court and after conclusion of trial, the respondent No.3, SDO, Churu, vide its judgment dated 26.03.2010 dismissed the suit.
9. Against the judgment dated 26.03.2010, the petitioners- plaintiffs preferred an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner, who vide its reasoned and detailed judgment dated 30.11.2012, set aside the judgment while holding that there was no evidence placed on behalf of the State to rebut the evidence of the petitioners-plaintiffs that they are not in lawful possession of the land in dispute. The trial court, while hearing the claim of the petitioners-plaintiffs, invoked the relevant Section of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 and the application was allowed and interim order was confirmed. In such a situation, the possession of the land in dispute till date proves to be in possession of the petitioners-plaintiffs. The Revenue Appellate Authority also held that the trial court committed a mistake in holding that Vijay Singh is not the adopted son of Nathu Singh, whereas Vijay Singh has produced a copy of the adoption-deed before the Court and none of the parties to the list had objected to the same. There are two provisions under Section 15AAA(1) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1956, according to which, the tenant is either registered in the annual register or according to clause (b), (Downloaded on 15/05/2023 at 10:21:58 PM) [2023/RJJD/013701] (5 of 16) [CW-14992/2016] if not registered in the annual register and his possession is properly certified, then such tenant is entitled to get khatedari rights. The possession of the agricultural land in dispute is with the petitioner since the time of their forefathers and has been going on since before the enactment of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1956 and the government has acquired the agricultural land in dispute. Till date, the petitioners-plaintiffs had never been dispossessed from the land in dispute and, therefore, in such a situation, when the petitioners-plaintiffs are proved to be khatedars of the land in disupte, then the SDO could not have held it otherwise.
10. Against the said judgment dated 30.11.2012 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner, the respondents preferred the appeal before the Board of Revenue, Ajmer, under Section 224 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and challenged the legality and validity of the said judgment passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner.
11. The Board of Revenue, Ajmer, by its judgment dated 04.07.2016, allowed the appeal filed by the respondents and also confirmed the judgment dated 26.03.2010 passed by the SDO, Churu.
12. Being aggrieved of the judgment and order dated 04.07.2016 (Annexure-9) passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer and the judgment dated 26.03.2010 (Annexure-6) passed by the SDO, Churu, the petitioners-plaintiffs have preferred the instant writ petition.
13. Learned counsel Shri R.S. Saluja representing the petitioners-plaintiffs, made following submissions:- (Downloaded on 15/05/2023 at 10:21:58 PM)
[2023/RJJD/013701] (6 of 16) [CW-14992/2016]
(a) That the petitioners-plaintiffs during trial and while filing the suit had produced the record of possession of the land in dispute from samvat 2013-2031, but the SDO, Churu as well as the Board of Revenue, Ajmer, failed to appreciate the important documents possessed by the petitioners-plaintiffs, merely because both, the learned SDO as well as the Board of Revenue, Ajmer, ignored the documents by saying that the documents produced which were duly issued by the Land Record Officer and the same were therefore, public documents and could not have been made by any other person. PW-3-Jessa Ram and PW-4-Ladhu Ram, were independent witnesses, whose agricultural land was situated next to the land in question and they deposed that the possession of land in question was lying with the petitioners. However, such oral and documentary evidences were also not duly considered by the SDO, Churu as well as the Board of Revenue, Ajmer.
(b) As per Section 15 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1956, the petitioners-plaintiffs are entitled and their names be declared as Khatedars. The petitioners-plaintiffs, in support of their claim, also produced the Girdawari samvat 2012-2015 of old Khasra No.20, Rohi Rampura Patta Jharia, Tehsil Churu as Exhibit-2 and also produced the continuing Girdawari samvat 2032 as Exhibit-3 to 10 and had proved without any reasonable doubt, that the petitioners-plaintiffs were in possession of the land in question.
The State Government issued the notice under Section 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (allotment of land for agricultural purposes) Rules, 1970 to the petitioners, which were produced before the SDO, Churu and the Board of Revenue, Ajmer, however, the same were not taken into consideration.
(Downloaded on 15/05/2023 at 10:21:58 PM) [2023/RJJD/013701] (7 of 16) [CW-14992/2016]
(c) The SDO, Churu, and the Board of Revenue, Ajmer, had not considered the important and main crux of the matter that if the petitioners-plaintiffs were having any title, then, there is no requirement that the petitioners-plaintiffs would file suit for declaration, as the petitioners-plaintiffs have claimed their Khatedari rights based on the possession of the land in question.
(d) Learned counsel for the petitioners-plaintiffs, placed reliance upon the following judgments of this Court to prove his case:-
(da) State of Rajasthan Vs. Mohan Singh [(1999) DNJ 629], relevant portions of which are quoted hereinbelow for the sake of ready reference:-
"11. In this case, the claim of the respondents-cultivators was that they were in actual possession and cultivating the land prior to 1955 which was disputed by the learned counsel Mr. Tatia. However, Mr. Tatia himself could not say that they were at least in possession of the land since 1970 meaning thereby that they are in possession of their lands since last three decades. When they have developed and nourished the said land and if this Court interferes with the order passed by the Board of Revenue whereby the khatedari rights are conferred upon them, it would be nothing but a travesty of justice.
12. The second submission of Mr. Tatia that the learned member of the Board of Revenue has misinterpreted or misconstrued the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Jugal Kishore's case (supra). Even assuming for the sake of arguments that the Board of Revenue has committed some error or mistake in properly appreciating the judgment of Division Bench in Jugal Kishore's case (supra), then also I would not like to interfere with the impugned common judgment and order passed by the (Downloaded on 15/05/2023 at 10:21:58 PM) [2023/RJJD/013701] (8 of 16) [CW-14992/2016] Board of Revenue in these petitions because it is clearly stated by the Hon'ble Judges of the Division Bench of this Court in para 21 of the Jugal Kishore's case (supra) that they cannot he said to be trespassers. It was clearly found that they were erstwhile tenants. In that view of the matter even if the Board of Revenue has committed some error, this Court is not bound to correct it when substantial justice has been done by the Board of Revenue to the poor cultivators/farmers."
(db) LRs of Netram & Anr. Vs. Board of Revenue & Ors. [(2007) 3 DNJ 1339], relevant portions of which are quoted hereinbelow for the sake of ready reference:-
"16. Section 15 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act was enacted only to give khatedari rights to those persons who were tenant at the time of commencement of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. This specific provision had not been enacted only for those persons whose names have already been entered in the record of rights. Because by getting the name entered into record of right, in pursuance of the lawful order one becomes khatedar tenant. Those persons whose names have not been entered in the revenue record like record of right and who otherwise proves that they were occupying the land as tenant can get declaration of their khatedari rights in agricultural land by filing suit u/s 15 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. In this case, when the plaintiffs possession over part of the land of khasra No. 4 Min was never objected by the landholder State, then further entry of their name in khasra girdawari showing their cultivatory possession was in the facts of this case, and in view of the stand taken by the defendants themselves was sufficient to treat the plaintiffs possession as of tenant and to declare them khatedar tenant u/s 15(1) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. Section 19 could not have been employed by the first appellate Court and there was no need of remanding the matter to the trial Court. Be it as it may be, since the order of remand was not challenged by (Downloaded on 15/05/2023 at 10:21:58 PM) [2023/RJJD/013701] (9 of 16) [CW-14992/2016] any of the parties, therefore, that order cannot be set aside in this writ petition but that will not affect adversely to the plaintiffs in getting declaration u/s 15 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 under which the suit was filed by the plaintiffs. As stated above, from the facts mentioned, in view of the oral evidence and documentary evidence, the plaintiffs cultivatory possession over khasra No. 4 min is fully proved and the Board of Revenue on misconception of law rejected the plaintiffs claim of khatedari over the land of khasra No. 4 Min.
17. The Board of Revenue further committed error of law by drawing wrong inference and drawing a presumption that the plaintiffs might have been given permission to occupy the land of Chandu and that presumption is contrary to the admission of the defendant that he never gave permission to the plaintiffs to occupy the land but his case is that the plaintiffs trespassed over this land. The same was position of Nanak that the plaintiffs encroached upon the land. In view of the above facts, one important fact which was missed by the Board of Revenue was that the defendants only took their plea of encroachment by the plaintiffs when the plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration of khatedari right and for injunction. In this, important aspect was ignored by the Board of Revenue that even when the suit for declaration of khatedari right and injunction was filed by the plaintiffs in the year 1956, the defendants did not choose to take any step to take possession back from the plaintiffs, then the defendants contention that the plaintiffs dispossessed the defendants from part of their land cannot be believed.
18. The Board of Revenues reasons given for discarding the jamabandi of Samwat Years 2011 to 2014 was that it was fraudulently made, then in that situation, there should have been a specific plea of the fabricating the document and it could have been raised by the defendants and the defendants could have produced the copy of another jamabandi to show that that was not the correct copy of the (Downloaded on 15/05/2023 at 10:21:58 PM) [2023/RJJD/013701] (10 of 16) [CW-14992/2016] jamabandi as the original record is kept by the government authorities. The Board of Revenues rejection of site inspection report is also without any reason. It is true that mere on the basis of possession, khatedari rights cannot be claimed but the plaintiffs never claimed their khatedari rights over the land in dispute merely on the basis of the report prepared by the patwari in the year 1961. That was a piece of evidence to prove the possession of the plaintiffs in the year 1961, the Board of Revenue was under
misconception that the plaintiffs basis of title or khatedari was the site map prepared by the patwari. The defendants failed to explain why that report could not have been believed by the Courts below."
(e) He also placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Brij Lal Vs. Board of Revenue & Ors. reported in AIR 1994 SCC 1128, relevant portion of the said judgment are reproduced hereinbelow for the sake of ready reference:-
"1...........
2............
3. As mentioned above, the Board of Revenue of Rajasthan had remanded the case for consideration afresh in accordance with the Rules. It is not disputed that the appellant is a "landless person" under the Rules. It is further not disputed that the appellant was "temporary cultivation lease-holder" and as such he was eligible and entitled to permanent allotment of the land on priority basis under the Rules. On the date when the appellant applied for permanent allotment he was holding the temporary allotment. If the appellant had procured temporary allotment by giving false declaration regarding age then proceedings for cancelling temporary allotment should have been undertaken. The temporary lease of the appellant was never cancelled. The appellant being "temporary cultivation lease-holder", permanent allotment could not be denied to him under the Rules. We are, therefore, of the view that the (Downloaded on 15/05/2023 at 10:21:58 PM) [2023/RJJD/013701] (11 of 16) [CW-14992/2016] Authorities under the Rules and the High Court fell into patent error in rejecting the claim of the appellant for permanent allotment.
4. Even otherwise, there was no justification for the Authorities under the Rules to reject the school certificate and the medical certificate. There was not even an iota of evidence on the record to show that the appellant was minor on the date of temporary allotment. After making temporary allotment in favour of the appellant, if it was sought to be cancelled on the ground that the appellant was minor at the time of allotment, then the Onus was on the authorities to show that the appellant had made misrepresentation regarding his age.
There was no basis at all for the authorities under the Rules to reach the finding that the appellant was minor on the date of the temporary allotment.
5. It is not disputed before us that the appellant is in cultivating possession of the land since 1970. It would be travesty of justice to dispossess the appellant from the land which he is nourishing for over a period of two decades.
6. We allow the appeal with costs set aside the judgment of the High Court and also of the authorities under the Rules and direct the authorities under the Rules to make permanent allotment of the land in dispute in favour of the appellant. We quantify the costs at Rs. 10,000/-"
14. He, thus, urged that the writ petition may kindly be allowed while setting aside the impugned order dated 04.07.2016 (Annexure-9), passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer and the order dated 26.03.2016 (Annexure-6), passed by the SDO, Churu.
15. Per contra, learned counsel Shri Harshit Bhurani, representing the respondents, made following submissions:- (Downloaded on 15/05/2023 at 10:21:58 PM)
[2023/RJJD/013701] (12 of 16) [CW-14992/2016]
(a) That the land in question was recorded as Barani, Kund, Chob land in the revenue record and thus, the petitioners-plaintiffs are not in a possession of the land in question and thus, the SDO, Churu and the Board of Revenue, Ajmer are perfectly justified in passing their respective orders.
(b) When the petitioners-plaintiffs admitted to trespass over the land in question and the same being a government land, appropriate proceedings in accordance with law were initiated against them and thus, the petitioners-plaintiffs stand, that they were having a lawful possession over the land in dispute, the proceedings were initiated against them, is absolutely false and frivolous.
(c) Learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance upon the judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, in the case of Shyonath & Anr. Vs. Rajasthan Board of Revenue, Ajmer & Ors. in SB Civil Writ Petition No.1137/2010, relevant portion of which, is reproduced hereinbelow for the sake of ready reference:-
"Mr. R.K. Goyal appearing with Mr. Peush Nag and Mr. Raghvendra Singh, for the defendants has emphatically submitted that the Board has committed a gross legal error in holding that by the mere factum of the plaintiffs having been recorded as khatedar in the revenue record subsequent to their laying the suit for permanent injunction, the suit at their instance was maintainable. He submitted that when the suit was filed, it was not even the case set up by the plaintiffs that they were the khatedars of the suit land. They had claimed right and interest in respect of the land only on the basis of a purported oral sell/purchase in the year 1970 and possession. It has been submitted that the plaintiffs had only produced the khasra girdawari for (Downloaded on 15/05/2023 at 10:21:58 PM) [2023/RJJD/013701] (13 of 16) [CW-14992/2016] samvat 2030 & 2031 wherefrom the name of the defendants first recorded was scratched out and that of the plaintiffs interpolated. It has been submitted that in the circumstances entry in the name of the plaintiffs in the of samvat 2030 & 2031 v khasra girdawari of samvat 2030 & 2031 was of no event by itself as a khasra girdawari is not a record of rights as has been held by the Full Bench of the Board in the case of Panne Singh Vs. Guman Singh [1964 RLW (Revenue Supplement) 38]. Counsel pointed out that no application for correction of a khasra girdawari lies in law and nothing at all can be made out therefrom more so as it was an isolated entry for one year rendered suspicious by the admitted fact of it being recorded after crossing out Shyonath's (defendant's) name therein. It has been submitted that thereafter the settlement authority had no jurisdiction or authority to make changes in the record of rights based on such a khasra girdawari and any action on its part seeking to confer khatedari rights on the plaintiffs is ab initio void. In any event this was subsequently after the filing of the suit in favour of the plaintiffs. Reference has been made to the judgment of the Board in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Jogaram [1994 RRD 266] wherein with reference to Section 135 of the Act of 1955, it has been held that the Assistant Settlement Officer does not have any authority to make changes in the record of rights and any action on his part to confer khatedari rights is void ab initio. It has been further submitted that this aspect of the matter was considered in great detail by the RAA in his judgment and decree dated 19.09.1997 but was arbitrarily circumvented and overlooked by the Boar by the Board in erroneously holding contrary to the settled law that the plaintiffs were khatedars of the suit land merely because of entries unauthorizedly made subsequently in their name in the record of rights by the settlement authority."
16. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the material available on record and the submissions made at Bar. (Downloaded on 15/05/2023 at 10:21:58 PM) [2023/RJJD/013701] (14 of 16) [CW-14992/2016]
17. The Board of Revenue, Ajmer, while deciding the matter had clarified all the facts that in the Jamabandi, samvat 2047-2050, Araji Khasra No.37, 189 and 191, total area of 41.17 bighas of land is recorded as Government Land. The Jamabandi of any area has not been presented by the petitioners-plaintiffs for Khatedari/ Non-Khatedari/Tenancy and only the khasra numbers are mentioned.
The petitioners-plaintiffs have produced copies of Khasra Girdawari of different samvats. It had been submitted by the petitioners-plaintiffs that in the disputed Araji in the samvat 2012, mistakenly, names of Anna Ram and Mala Ram were recorded, however, how the mistake was committed and whether the land in dispute was recorded in the name of ancestors of the petitioners- plaintiffs, the same has not been explained nor any proof whatsoever was placed. Also, for the samvat 2012, they had not produced the Jamabandi for the possession held by them at that point of time. The petitioners-plaintiffs had claimed to gain possession of the land in dispute prior to samvat 2012, however, no record whatsoever was produced by them.
It is important to note here that for the samvat year 2012- 2015, Khasra No.20, the Kund Area, admeasuring 44.06 bighas, the land was recorded in the names of " अन्ना वल्द अर्जन चमार" and "माला वल्द दे व नायक" meaning thereby, that the aforementioned land was in possession of persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes, who were the Khatedars of such land. Thereafter, in the samvat 2016-2019, in the aforementioned Araji, the land admeasuring 23.12 bighas, was registered in the names of Nathu Singh, Bagh Singh, Rugh Singh and the unread Magtu Singh. It was said by the (Downloaded on 15/05/2023 at 10:21:58 PM) [2023/RJJD/013701] (15 of 16) [CW-14992/2016] plaintiff-petitioners, that the land in dispute was cultivated by Mangal Singh, however, there was no evidence or any document/certificate available on record to prove the said fact. After the death of Mangal Singh, Magan Singh and Nathu Singh used to cultivate the land in dispute and after the death of Nathu Singh, Vijay Singh was adopted. However, proof of this document was also not produced by the petitioners-plaintiffs.
It is also not in dispute, that the documentary evidence was not presented in respect of the Araji in dispute and neither the evidence of Jamabandi nor the evidence of possession/certificate was presented for the samvat 2012, when the Rajasthan Tenancy Act came into force. In the Khasra Girdawari, the caste has been mentioned as "Daroga" but the petitioners-plaintiffs have presented the suit while mentioning the caste as "Rajput". While making the aforementioned observations, the Board of Revenue, Ajmer had arrived at a conclusion that the petitioners-plaintiffs are unable to prove their case and therefore, it rejected the case of the petitioners-plaintiffs.
18. This Court, finds that the petitioners-plaintiffs are unable to prove their Khatedari as well as possession for the land in dispute. No document/evidence whatsoever had been placed by them to establish their Khatedari and possession. Mere fact that the respondents initiated action against them action against them under Section 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (allotment of land for agricultural purpose) Rule, 1970, does not establish they were having Khatedari rights/possession over the land in dispute.
19. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds that there is no illegality and infirmity with the judgment dated (Downloaded on 15/05/2023 at 10:21:58 PM) [2023/RJJD/013701] (16 of 16) [CW-14992/2016] 04.07.2016 passed by the respondent No.1 Board of Revenue, Ajmer (Annexure-9).
20. Accordingly, the instant writ petition, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed. Stay application also stands rejected.
21. No order as to costs.
(DR.NUPUR BHATI),J Devesh Thanvi/-
(Downloaded on 15/05/2023 at 10:21:58 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)