N.N. Mathur, J. - (1.) BEING aggrieved by the part of the order of learned Single Judge dated 24.03.2000 to the extent that while relegating the respondents -writ petitioners to the alternate remedy of revenue suit learned Single Judge extended the protection from forcible dispossession without specifying any time period.
(2.) THE respondents -writ petitioners filed a writ petition seeking directions not to disturb their possession in any manner including auctioning the subject land and further to direct the appellants -respondents to treat them as Khatedar tenants of the said land. The brief facts as culled out from the pleadings are that the subject land bearing Khasra Nos. 22/2 and 23/2 originally stood in the name of Shri Abdul Haq and others. However, some of the co -sharers of the subject land left India in the year 1949 -50 and out of all the co -sharers only Shri Abdul Rehman remained in India. Abdul Rehman raised a claim before the Deputy Custodian of Evacuee Property with respect to the entire land of 190 Bighas and 5 Biswas in Khasra Nos. 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26. However, the Deputy Custodian by order dated 16.05.1951 accepted his claim only to the extent of 1/3 share. The subject property was also declared as evacuee property. The said order was modified in revision by order dated 14.07.1953. It is submitted that according to the State 126 Bighas and 17 Biswas of land was entered in the name of evacuee property under the charge of Tehsildar. Hurda. It further appears from the record that petitioners were called by the Rehabilitation Department to pay the double amount than the normal land revenue which they have paid for three years from Samvat 2017 to 2019 and continued to pay the additional land revenue to the Rehabilitation Department in their capacity as old Khatedar tenants of Evacuee Department. They continued to pay the land revenue for subsequent years. The Assistant Settlement Officer initiated proceedings against Shri Bhola Nath and others similarly situated as "Shikmi Tenants" of Abdul Shakoor and Zalaluddin who had migrated to Pakistan. The Assistant Settlement Officer regularised the Khatedari rights of Shri Bhola Nath but the petitioners were recorded as Sub -tenants as per the order dated 02.08.1971. The petitioners came to know about the pendency of the proceedings of recording of Khatedari rights in their favour before the State Government after the death of their father Kalyanmal. The Tehsildar, Hurda made a recommendation to the Collector, Bhilwara to confer full Khatedari rights to the petitioners. However, the Rehabilitation Department threatened the petitioners to dispossess them from the land in question. Thus, they approached to this Court by way of petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(3.) LEARNED Single Judge rejected the petition on the ground that no relief in the form of grant of Khatedari rights can be granted in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge relegated the petitioners to seek appropriate remedy before the competent court. However, the learned Single Judge considering the fact that petitioners continued in possession on the subject land since 1946, directed riot to forcibly dispossess them.;