MILKIYAT SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER's father Gurdayal Singh by a registered sale-deed dated 29. 10. 74, purchased twenty-five Bigha of land situated in Square No. 28 of Chak Lohada Barani in tehsil Raisinghnagar, from one Shri G. Ram Singh @ Jora Ram S/o Sardara, in the names of petitioner Milkiyat Singh and his brother Bakhshish Singh. 12 -1/2 Bighas of land of Kila No. l to 12 and half of Kila No. 13 were purchased in the name of Bakhshish Singh while half of Kila No. 13 and Kila Numbers 14 to 25 were purchased in the name of petitioner Milkiyat Singh. The Tehsildar, Raisinghnagar, initiated the proceedings against the petitioner for 12-1/2 Bighas of land bearing Kila Nos. 1 to 12 and 1/2 of Kila No. 13 and filed a suit under Section 175 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act on 27. 8. 75 in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Raisinghnagar. That suit, filed by the Tehsildar was decreed by the Sub- Divisional Officer, Raisinghnagar, vide judgment dated 1. 5. 78. While decreeing the suit, the learned Sub-Divisional Officer held that the sale of the land was made in contravention of the provisions of Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. Dissatisfied with the judgment dated 1. 5. 78 passed by the learned Sub- Divisional Officer, Raisinghnagar, petitioner Milkiyat Singh filed an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, which was allowed vide judgment dated 31. 3. 80 and the suit filed by the State was dismissed. After disposal of the appeal, the Sub- Divisional Officer, Raisinghnagar, again issued a notice to the petitioner and the petitioner raised objection thereto and challenged the authority of the Sub-Divisional Officer for issuance of the notice. The objections raised by the petitioner were sustained by the learned Sub-Divisional Officer vide judgment dated 30. 3. 83 and the notices issued against the petitioner were discharged. Against the order dated 30. 3. 83, Chimna Ram the legal representatives of G. Ram Singh @ Jora Ram preferred an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority and the appeal filed by him was dismissed by the Revenue Appellate Authority vide judgment dated 4. 7. 84. The proceedings with respect to 12 1/2 Bighas of land, which was purchased by the petitioner's father in the name of Bakhshish Singh relating to Kila No. 1 to 12 and half of Kila No. 13 by the same sale-deed, were terminated in favour of Bakhshish Singh and it was held that the sale by G. Ram Singh in favour of Bakhshish Singh is not the 'sale' under Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. The Tehsildar, Raisinghnagar, again took-up the matter against petitioner Milkiyat Singh with respect to the remaining 12 1/2 Bighas of land, i. e. , half Bigha of Kila No. 13 and Kila numbers 14 to 25 of Square No. 28 purchased by Gurdayal Singh by the same sale-deed. The suit filed by the Tehsildar under Section 175 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act against Bakhshish Singh, in which the petitioner was substituted as a defendant was decreed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Raisinghnagar, vide decree and judgment dated 24. 8. 82. Chimna Ram the legal representative of deceased G. Ram Singh @ Jora Ram, filed an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority against the order dated 24. 8. 82 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Raisinghnagar. The petitioner, also, submitted cross-objections in the appeal filed by Chimna Ram. The appeal, filed by Chimna Ram, was allowed by the Revenue Appellate Authority vide judgment dated 18. 3. 83 but the cross-objections, filed by the petitioner, were dismissed. The petitioner filed Second Appeal before the Board of Revenue challenging the judgment dated 18. 7. 83 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner, by which the cross-objections filed by the petitioner, were dismissed. The appeal, filed by the petitioner, was dismissed by the Board of Revenue by its judgment dated 8. 5. 85 and it was held that the observations made by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner, are innocuous and the Revenue Appellate Authority, while allowing the appeal, set-aside the decree and judgment passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer and no appeal against that finding is maintainable. After dismissal of the appeal by the Board of Revenue, Chimna Ram, on 27. 5. 85, moved an application before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Raisinghnagar, in which it was stated by Chimna Ram that the Board of Revenue as well as the Revenue Appellate Authority have decided the matter in his favour but Gurdayal Singh, Milkiyat Singh, Bakhshish Singh and Charanjeet Singh are not vacating the land and, therefore, the possession of the land may be delivered to him. This application, filed by Chimna Ram, was allowed by the Sub-Divisional Officer on 9. 6. 85 and the Naib Tehsildar (Revenue), Gajsinghpura, was directed to arrange for the delivery of the possession of 12 Bighas 10 Bishwas of land to Chimna Ram in pursuance to the judgment dated 8. 5. 85 passed by the Board of Revenue and in pursuance to this, an entry in the Ghatna Bahi was made by the Patwari of the Halka on 24. 6. 85 showing the delivery of the possession of the land in question to Chimna Ram. It is against this order dated 19. 6. 85 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer ordering for the delivery of the possession of the land to the petitioner on 24. 6. 85 that the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

(2.) IT is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no order regarding delivery of the possession of the land to Chimna Ram was passed either by the Revenue Appellate Authority or by the Board of Revenue and, therefore, the Sub-Divisional Officer was not justified in ordering for the delivery of the possession to Chimna Ram when the suit, filed by the appellant was dismissed, the Sub-Divisional Officer was not competent to direct the Naib Tehsildar to hand-over the possession of Kila Numbers 14 to 25 and half of Kila No. 13 to Chimna Ram and the order, passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer is without jurisdiction. Learned Deputy Government Advocate as well as learned counsel for the respondents No. 5 and 6, on the other hand, have supported the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer and submitted that when the judgment has been delivered in favour of Chimna Ram and earlier the possession was with the Receiver, the natural consequence of that must be that the possession should have been handed over to Chimna Ram and the same has been rightly ordered to be delivered to him and the order, passed by the Sub- Divisional Officer, therefore, does not suffer from any infirmity.