D.B.CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 159/1999 Kishna Ram v. Board of Revenue & ors. Date of Order :: 26-08-2008 HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. NARAYAN ROY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA Mr. K.C.Samdariya for the appellant Mr. O.P.Boob, for the State Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the State. This appeal is directed against order dated 2.2.1999 passed in S.B.Civil Writ Petition no. 1847/1989 whereby and whereunder the writ application filed by the appellant was dismissed upholding the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below. It appears that a revenue suit was filed by the appellant under the provisions of Rajasthan Tenancy Act to declare his khatedari rights over the suit land. The suit however, on contest was dismissed holding that no documentary evidence was produced to declare khatedari rights and on the basis of evidence adduced by the plaintiff a case of trespass was made out. The evidence recorded by the suit court was upheld in appeal and also before the Board of Revenue, giving rise to the writ application. It is undisputed that no documentary evidence was filed on behalf of the plaintiff, particularly when a notice was served on him under the provisions of section 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956. Only ocular evidence was led by the plaintiff to establish a case of his possession. The possession however, was found to be not legal. The status of the plaintiff was found to be that of a trespasser. Section 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 postulates a - 2 - situation where a person is in unauthorised occupation of a land. In reference to section 91 of the Act when the suit was brought it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to adduce documentary evidence showing his possession over the land in question. In absence of such document the courts below cannot be said to have committed jurisdictional error in not finding the plaintiff in possession of the land by virtue of certain documents. Even before us no document has been filed or produced by the appellant to show his right over the land in question and to dislodge the State authorities' version that he is in unauthorised possession of the same. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, the courts below neither acted without jurisdiction nor committed any error on the face of the record. The learned Single Judge of this Court, in this view of the matter, refused to exercise the power of superintendence on the same facts in view of the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in Sadhna Lodh v. National Insurance Company Ltd. & anr., (2003) 3 SCC 524. For the reasons aforementioned, therefore, we find no merit in this appeal. The appeal accordingly is dismissed. [SANGEET LODHA],J. [NARAYAN ROY],C.J. mathur/-