- (1.) A writ of certiorari is sought by the petitioners for quashing & setting aside judgments dt. 12.6.84 of the Assistant Collector, Kota (Ann. 5), affirmed by Revenue Appellate Authority Kota by judgment dt. 8.1286 (Ann. 6) and upheld by the Board of Revenue by judgment dated 23.12.94 (Ann. 7).
(2.) LAXMAN Singh, Gajendra Singh & Kamlabai, petitioners had instituted revenue suit No. 62/74 under Secs. 88 & 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short "Tenancy Act") for declaration and perpetual injunction, before the Assistant Collector Kota claiming that agricultural lands bearing various khasras and measuring 160 bighas 11 biswas (detailed out in plaint) situated in village Arampura of Ladpura Tehsil of Kota owned by Maharao Bhim Singh (defendant No.1) Ex-ruler of Kota, have been in possession of the plaintiffs (petitioners) for cultivation on payment of rent worth Rs. 1200/- per year since the year 1963 at the time when the suit lands were under the management of defendant No.5 Ramjata Shiv Kumar w/o Maharao Bhim Singh. The plaintiffs claimed their possession over the suit lands as tenants w.e.f. 13.4.1964- when the Rajasthan Land Reforms & Acquisition of Land Owners Estates Act, 1963 (for brevity "Land Owners Act") came into force. It was the case of the petitioners that they having been in possession of suit lands as tenants of its landowner viz. Ex-Ruler of Kota (defendants) since before the Land Owners Act came into force. they had become khatedar tenants of suit land by virtue of the Land Owners Act, but Maharao Bhim Singh and their persons (defendant Nos. 1, 2 & 5) since were bent upon dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit lands, they had no option except to approach the revenue court seeking declaration alongwith permanent injunction for protection of their rights with possession over the suit lands. The State of Rajasthan being land-holder of the suit lands was also arrayed as party defendants, inasmuch as before instituting the revenue suit, a notice under Sec. 80 CPC was also served upon the Collector Kota on 16.12.1971 for accepting the plaintiffs as Khatedar tenants of the suit lands and further for making entries in the revenue records but their names having not been entered as khatedar tenants, the plaintiffs sought for declaring them as khatedar tenants of the suit lands measuring 160 bighas 11 biswas of village Arampura and for making entries in revenue records accordingly. Permanent injunction was sought for directing the defendants Ex-ruler of Kota not to dispossess them of the suit lands. Despite service of the notice, Maharao Bhim Singh (defendant No.1) remained absent resulting into order of proceedings ex parte against him, but her wife (defendant No.2) filed written statement admitting the factum of the suit lands having been given to the plaintiffs on a rent of Rs. 1200/- per year for cultivation but protested against plaintiffs' rights to have become khatedar tenants by virtue of Sec. 6 of the Land Owners Act which was averred to be in violation of Article 31 of the Constitution. On the contrary, in written statement, on behalf of the State, it was contended that the plaintiffs in collusion of the defendants (Ex-rulers of Kota) have instituted suit seeking permanent injunction & declaring them as Khatedar tenants. After framing necessary issues, recording of the evidence of both the parties who led not only oral but also documentary evidence, and hearing them, the Assistant Collector by judgment dated 30.11.76 dismissed the plaintiffs suit, against which an appeal was preferred before the Revenue Appellate Authority Kota (R.A.A.) who by judgment dt. 17.4.80 remanded the case to the trial Court for fresh decision in view of the Rajasthan Tenancy Amendment Act No. 16 of 1979 and thereby plaintiff Laxman Singh was re-examined as PW1. But again the trial Court dismissed the plaintiff's suit by its judgment dated 12.6.84 (Ann. 5), against which appeal before the RAA was also dismissed by the impugned judgment dated 8.12.86 (Ann. 6) upholding dismissal of the suit and, therefore, the plaintiffs preferred second appeal before the Board of Revenue Ajmer. But the second appeal was also dismissed by the Board of Revenue under judgment dated 23.12.1994 (Ann. 7). Hence this writ petition. Reply to the writ petition has been filed only on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 & 4 (State of Rajasthan & Asstt. Collector Kota) alongwith judgments dt. 30.11.76 (Ann. R1/1), dt. 17.4.80 (Ann. R1/2) & statement of Laxman Singh (Ann. R1/3). Shri K.K. Mehrish learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the learned Revenue courts have misconstrued Section 6 of the Land Owners Act, inasmuch as defendant Maharao Bhim Singh was land owner of the suit land as defined in Section 2(g) of the Land Owners Act and whose suit lands were being managed by his wife (defendant No.2) Shiv Kumari who had executed please deed dated 4.6.63 (Ex.2) in favour of the petitioners for cultivating suit lands in payment of annual rent of Rs. 1200/- by virtue of which they were in possession over the suit lands since 1963 so they were entitled to become Khatedar tenants of suit lands having acquired such rights upon the application of the Land Owners Act which stood in force on 13.4.64. As regards objection raised on behalf of the respondent State in its reply as to the extinguishment of rights of Maharao Bhim Singh under the judgment dated 12.3.93 (Ann. R1/4), Shri Mehrish contended that this judgment (Ann R1/4) has already been quashed by the Board of Revenue by its judgment dated 20.2.97 (Ann. 8) and even after the remanded by the Board of Revenue, the Divisional Commissioner (Compensation) by his judgment dated 11.8.97 (Ann. 9) held that all the properties under item Nos. 1 to 20 of the Reference made by the Collector were not liable to be acquired under the Land Owners Act inasmuch as such properties were held to have vested in the heirs of late Maharao Bhim Singh.
(3.) BE that as it may, merely because the Divisional Commissioner under his judgment dated 11.8.97 (Ann. 9) held all the properties under Reference to have vested in the heirs of late Maharao Bhim Singh, in my considered view, it would not have extended any benefit to the present petitioners in this petition arising out of their suit claiming Khatedari tenants under the Land Owners Act because under none of the impugned judgments of the Revenue Courts below, it does not appear that the defendants who land ownership was being claimed by the plaintiffs over the suit lands, have appeared in the witness box or have led any evidence that they were owners of the suit land, rather from the suit proceedings, it is crystal that the defendant No.1 did not appear inasmuch as trial Court ordered ex parte proceedings against him and he ever allowed the proceedings gone into ex parte through out trial, appeal and second appeal proceedings, nor any written statement to the plaint was filed. Only the defendant No.2 wife of Ex-ruler Bhim Singh (defendant No.1) though presented written statement wherein she rather protested contending specifically against right of plaintiffs to become khatedar tenants by virtue of Section 6 of the Land Owners Act. However, Section 6 of the Land Owners Act provides that every person who is entered in the revenue records as a tenant or a tenant of Khudkasht but not as a sub-tenant, of any land forming part of an estate and who had become a khatedari tenant thereof prior to commencement of any law or otherwise, shall be deemed to be the Khatedar tenant of such land holding from the land owner of the estate. Sub section (g) of Section 2 defines "land owner" which means the Rules of a covenanting State in Rajasthan holding an estate under & in accordance with the settlement of is personal or private properties made in pursuance of the covenant and finally approved by the Central Government. Sub section (f) of Section 2 defines "land" which means any land held or let for purposes of agriculture but does not include forts, buildings and building plots specified in the inventory. Sub section (b) of Section 2 defines "estate" which means land or right, title or interest in land held by a landowner. Thus, `estate' is defined to be the land or rights, title or interest in land held by the landowner only in case there is covenant as to personal or private properties approved by the Central Government. In other words, in case the properties are not held by the landowner, it will not be an estate within the purview of Sec. 2(b). ;