1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7874/06 Rameshwar & Ors. Vs. Board of Revenue, Ajmer & Ors. Date of order : 12/2/2008. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Bhanu Pareek for the petitioners. ****** Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. The writ petition has been filed against the judgment of the Revenue Board dated 16.3.2001 whereby the second appeal of the petitioner against the judgment passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority was dismissed and also against the judgment dated 20.9.2006 whereby the review petition filed by the petitioners was dismissed by the Board of Revenue. The Revenue Appellate Authority had upheld the judgment and decree passed by the SDO in favour of the plaintiff-respondents. 2 The plaintiff-respondents filed the revenue suit on 28.2.1967 before the Court of Assistant Collector, Jaipur wherein the relief was claimed that they be declared khatedar of khasra nos.113, 114, 115, 116, 118 and 165 in Revenue Village, Asarpura. The learned trial court decreed the suit vide order dated 16.3.1991 holding that the plaintiff-respondents were in possession of the disputed land at the time of commencement of Rajasthan Tenancy Act and therefore they are entitled to be declared khatedars by virtue of provisions of Section 15 and 19 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act. The Revenue Appellate Authority upheld the aforesaid judgment and thereafter the Board of Revenue too. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the courts below failed to appreciate the record relating to the aforesaid land which was maintained during 3 the State time. The land in dispute was recorded in the name of Ganesh Narain Vyas, the Zamindar. Learned counsel in this connection produced copy of the missal hakeat of Svt. 1887 and argued that plaintiff was merely a hali of the predecessor-in-title of the petitioner. Petitioner has purchased the said land by registered sale deed dated 1.6.67. It was argued that the possession of the plaintiff-respondents could not be taken as proved merely because their name was mentioned as sub-tenant in khasra girdawari of Svt. 2009-12, 2015-17 and 2018-19. Learned counsel cited the judgment of Supreme Court in Smt. Sonawati & Ors. vs. Sri Ram & Anr., AIR 1968 SC 466 in which it was held that a person who has forcefully acquired the cultivatory possession cannot claim as a matter of right as against the Bhumidar of the land. 4 It was submitted that the learned Board of Revenue has also erred in law in not appreciating the aforesaid arguments in true perspective even when the review petition was filed before it. Learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Smt. Sonawati & Ors. vs. Sri Ram & Anr. reported in AIR 1968 SC 466. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the impugned order and also the other material forming part of the record, I find that the learned courts belows have concurrently recorded the finding on the question of fact of possession of the plaintiff- respondents. All the courts have already held that the plaintiff-respondents were in possession in Svt. 2012 i.e. 15.10.1955 when the Rajasthan Tenancy Act was enforced. Even if the plaintiffs are 5 accepted as a hali / shikami of the predecessor-in-title of the petitioners, the learned courts held that they would still be entitled to khatedari rights by virtue of Section 19 of the Tenancy Act. The Courts also found that the apart from the khasra girdawari aforesaid, the plaintiffs had produced the receipt of the land revenue for the year 1959, 1961, 1962 and 64 which proved their continued possession. The suit was filed as late as on 28.2.1967 and the petitioners claim to have purchased the said land on 1.6.1967. In view of the analysis made by all the courts below, especially when the suit has culminated into passing of decree in favour of the plaintiffs on the basis of finding of fact, I do not find any good reason to interfere with the order passed by the courts below, which in my view have not committed any such error of law as may 6 be described as error apparent on the face of the record. The judgment of the Supreme Court relied by the learned counsel for the petition is distinguishable no facts and cannot be applied to the present case. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/