HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) A preliminary objection was raised by the counsel for the non -petitioner that Balbir could not bring the revision petition as he was a Biswedar and the lands having vested in the Govt. after the abolition of the Biswedari, he could not bring a suit for ejectment. This objection would have been tenable if as a result of the abolition of Biswedari the right and title of the Biswedar in this land were held to have been extinguished, but as it happens in this case the contention of the petitioner is that the land was in his khudkasht and, therefore, the non -petitioner could not acquire khatedari rights therein. It is obvious that this question which goes to the root of the case has not been examined by the courts below. Under the circumstances, the preliminary objection is hereby over -ruled.
(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Mukhram moved an application under sec. 7 of the Rajasthan Protection of Tenants Ordinance on 16.7.54 for being declared as the successor of his deceased brother, Ramkanwar and for reinstatement. The trial court held the applicant not entitled to succeed to Ramkanwars property and accordingly, rejected the application on 27.5.61. The appeal filed by Mukhram was accepted by the learned Revenue Appellate Authority vide his order dated 17.1.1962. It is against this order that the petitioner has come up in revision.
(3.) His contention is that Ramkanwar was his occupancy tenant who died issueless in 1954. As the Alwar Revenue Code was the law then prevalent in the erstwhile State of Alwar, succession to his property would be governed by sec. 136 thereof. As Ramkanwar left no one surviving him in accordance with the provisions of this section, his rights stood extinguished and reverted to the petitioner.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.