- (1.) SINCE no one has appeared for the appellant, though otherwise represented, we could have dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution but we refrain from doing so because dismissal of the appeal for want of prosecution does not serve anybody's purpose.
(2.) WE have perused record of the appeal and also the writ petition out of which this appeal arises and have also considered the submissions of learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.1 to 4 on merits of the controversy, which is subject matter of present appeal. Having perused record of the case and after hearing the submissions of learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.1 to 4 and also the State counsel, who appeared for respondents No.5 to 8, we are of the considered opinion that this appeal has no merit. Facts of the case lie in narrow compass which, however, need mention in brief. The dispute in this case relates to agriculture land bearing khasra No.416 ad-measuring 9-lll)3 {quarter to ten bighas & 3 biswas}, present khasra No.664 area 1.60.61 hectare, situated in village Guda Soorsingh, Tehsil- Marwar Junction, district- Pali. The appellant filed a revenue suit, being Revenue Suit No.92/1992 before the Sub Divisional Officer, Sojat against respondents No.1 to 4, in respect of afore- mentioned agriculture land; claiming khatedari rights over the land in question. The suit was contested by the respondents No.1 to 4, inter alia, on the ground that they have been in possession in their own rights as khatedar, duly recorded as such in the revenue records. It was contended on their behalf that the plaintiff (appellant herein) is only shown to be a cultivator, having no right whatsoever, much less superior rights as against respondent-defendants over the land in question. It is essentially this question, which was debated and gone into by the revenue court on the basis of pleadings and evidence adduced by the parties. By order dated 19.08.1998 (Annx.4), the Sub Divisional Officer, Sojat dismissed the revenue suit and held that the plaintiff (appellant) failed to prove his right, title and interest under any of the provisions of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act whereas the defendant-respondents were held to be recorded khatedars in respect of the land in question. The plaintiff, felt aggrieved, filed an appeal being Appeal No.23/1999 before the appellate authority at Pali against this impugned judgment of the Sub Divisional Officer.
(3.) THE Revenue Appellate Authority concurred with all the findings recorded by the Sub Divisional Officer and accordingly dismissed the appeal, finding no merit therein vide judgment dated 16.3.2000 (Annx.5). The plaintiff (appellant herein) felt aggrieved of the first appellate court's order, carried the matter to second appellate court i.e. before the Board of Revenue, being Appeal No.58/2000. The Board of Revenue also vide order dated 22nd August 2003 (Annx.6) dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer and the first appellate court. It is against these orders, the plaintiff- appellant felt aggrieved, filed a writ petition being Writ Petition No.1677/2004; out of which this writ appeal arises. The writ court (learned Single Judge) by impugned order dated 21 st April 2004 dismissed the writ petition in limine and affirmed all the orders of the revenue authorities referred supra. It is against this order, the plaintiff- appellant has felt aggrieved and filed this intra-court appeal before this Court. It is with this back ground, the question now arises for consideration in this appeal whether three revenue authorities, that is- one original and two appellate and lastly writ court, were justified in dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff (appellant herein). This is what learned Single Judge held while dismissing the writ petition: "I do not find any sufficient ground to interfere with the impugned orders. Even from the perusal of Annx.3 it transpires that before 2012, in the year 2011 defendant Babuda has been mentioned as khatedar and even in subsequent years also Babuda has been mentioned as khatedar while the petitioner has been shown to be cultivator. In these circumstances no benefit of Section 15 of the Tenancy Act as sought to be claimed is available to the petitioner. The courts below have rightly dismissed the suit." ;