DEVI SINGH MUKANDI JAGOO Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE FOR RAJASTHAN:BOARD OF REVENUE FOR RAJASTHAN AJMER:BOARD OF REVENUE FOR RAJASTHAN AJMER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are directed against a common order dated J 28/07/1981 made by the High court of Rajasthan, Jaipur bench in Civil Writ Petition Nos. 164 to 168 of 1977.

(2.) The cause for these appeals is a direction issued by the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, a functionary established under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, empowered, in the regular course, to hear second appeals. Five suits were filed by the respective appellants in these appeals against the State of Rajasthan in the court of the Assistant Collector, Bharatpur seeking declaration that by virtue of Section 5 (4 of the Rajasthan Zamindari and Biswedari Abolition Act, 1959 they had become Khatedars for they were owners in actual cultivation over the said area on the crucial date. The suits were contested by the State of Rajasthan. In support of their claim the appellants, the plaintiffs therein, produced revenue records such as jamabandis of the Samvat 2002, 2006, 2018 and 2026 showing consistent actual possession over the lands claimed by them. It appears that jamabandi for the Samvat 2015 was not produced by either party and this jamabandi could have been the closest to the date on which the zamindari and biswedari under the Act was abolished. The gap therein was filled by the plaintiffs appellants by production of oral evidence which the trial court believed. The only witness examined by the State being the patwari of the village could be of no assistance to defend the suit. As a result the suits were decreed. The first appeals filed by the State of Rajasthan before the Revenue Appellate Authority were dismissed. The second appeals by the State to the Board of Revenue too were dismissed. The orders of the lower courts and the decrees passed by them thus got merged in the judgments and decrees of the Board of Revenue.

(3.) Some outsiders, interested in disestablishing the rights of the plaintiffs-appellants, filed an appeal before the First Appellate Authority against the judgment and decree of the Assistant Collector. The First Appellate Authority spurned the attempt holding those persons as having no locus standi. Further attempt by them in the second appeal before the Board of Revenue met the same fate. However, it seems that those persons were able to create a dent in the minds of the members of the Board of Revenue and thus it made the following observations: