- (1.) THIS revision petition has been filed against the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority, Kota dated 13-12-1967, whereby he partly accepted the appeal of the applicant against the order of the Collector, Kota dated 9-11-66 and reduced the penalty to Rs. 300/- while holding that the petitioner-appellant was a trespasser and, therefore, the order of ejectment passed against him was fully justified.
(2.) THE learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the land in question had been purchased by the applicant from one Ramlal Bheel in 1959, though the sale-deed was got registered in 1966. It is urged that in holding the applicant to be a trespasser over the Government land, the lower court has committed an illegality. In this connection, a reference has been made to the report of Ram Gopal Inspector Land Records dated 20-2-66 showing his inability to determine the title of the applicant for want of record. At any rate, it is argued that from the aforesaid report the occupation of Ramlal over the disputed land stands confirmed. It is also urged that the disputed land was part of the Abadi land and normally, therefore, no revenue record was available showing the individual possession. It is argued that in ignoring this fact, the lower courts have fallen into an illegality which deserves to be cured in revision. In reply, the learned Government Advocate has argued that the title of the applicant is based on the title of Ramlal Bheel and unless it can be shown that Ramlal had a valid title to the land in dispute, the applicant cannot claim the ownership of the aforesaid land. In this connection, learned Government Advocate has drawn my attention to the statement of Ramlal which says that the land sold was covered by a broken hut enclosed by a 'bada' At the same time he admits that he had no patta for the land. On the basis of this statement, it is rightly argued that the title of Ramlal was ephemeral and, therefore, the vendee-applicant cannot claim any better title, and the action taken to evict him in summary proceedings u/s 19 LR Act is fully justified. This argument must prevail. The proceedings u/s 91 LR Act are summary proceedings and if the Tehsildar finds that the occupation of the person concerned is without lawful authority he shall be regarded as a trespasser and may be su-mmarily evicted therefrom by the Tehsildar. Evidently, in this case, there is a concurrent finding of facts by the courts below that the occupation of the applicant over the land in dispute was unauthorised. No illegality or material irregularity has been shown to exist in the manner in which this finding has been arrived at and, therefore, I see no reason to interfere with the same in exercise of the revi-sional jurisdiction of this court. As a result, this revision petition is hereby rejected. .;