- (1.) AFTER having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners- appellants and having perused the material placed on record, we are unable to find any reason to entertain this intra-court appeal against the order dated 10.04.2012 as passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP No.7912/2011.
(2.) THE petitioners-appellants preferred the said writ petition seeking to question the order dated 28.02.2011 whereby the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer had dismissed the second appeal filed by them against the judgment and decree as passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bhilwara on 28.02.2001. By the said judgment and decree dated 28.02.2001, the Revenue Appellate Authority had dismissed the first appeal filed against the judgment and decree as passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Gangapur on 2000, dismissing the suit for declaration of khatedari rights and perpetual injunction as filed by Shri Hari Singh, the predecessor of the present appellants. 3. Thus, in a nut shell, the position is that by way of this intra- court appeal, the petitioners-appellants seek to question the concurrent findings of the three revenue courts and, thereafter, of the learned Single Judge of this Court. The fundamental aspect of the matter remains that by the orders impugned, the suit for declaration and perpetual injunction as filed by Shri Hari Singh in relation to the land in question was found bereft of substance, not making out a case for declaration of khatedari rights in his favour. It is noticed that the land in question is recorded in the khatedari of the defendant No.1, Shri Shambhu Singh, brother of the plaintiff Shri Hari Singh. The claim of the plaintiff had been that the land in question was purchased by him but in the name of the defendant No.1 for himself being in Government service. According to the plaintiff, he continued to remain in cultivatory possession of the land in question; and had been making payment of the land revenue. It was contended that as per Sections 15 and 19 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, the plaintiff had acquired khatedari rights. One of the contentions on the part of the plaintiff was that the defendant No.1, Shambhu Singh had, in fact, executed a document (Taharir) admitting the fact that the land in question belonged to the plaintiff. The learned Trial Court proceeded to reject the claim made by the plaintiff essentially with the findings that he had failed to establish his possession over the land in question so as to acquire the khatedari rights; and that the alleged document of Taharir (Ex.5) was not proved in accordance with law and the same was rather a made-up document, as had been the position of the other documents sought to be relied upon by the plaintiff. The Revenue Appellate Authority endorsed the basic findings of the learned Trial Court that the plaintiff had failed to establish his possession and had failed to prove the alleged Taharir with cogent evidence. The Board of Revenue found nothing of an error of law so as to warrant interference in further appeal before it. The Board of Revenue also considered the submissions in regard to the alleged Taharir and observed that the same had not been proved by the relevant witnesses.
(3.) BEFORE the learned Single Judge of this Court in the aforesaid writ petition, the basic argument on behalf of the petitioners- appellants was that the finding of the revenue Courts suffered from perversity because the defendant-respondent Shambhu Singh himself had given in writing that the land belonged to the plaintiff Hari Singh; and that execution of the Taharir was duly proved. The learned Single Judge has found fallacy in the argument as advanced while observing, inter alia, as under: "In my opinion, there is complete fallacy in the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners because after taking into consideration entire facts of the case and evidence on record, detailed judgment was rendered by Sub Divisional Officer, Gangapur while framing issues, in which, it is held that the plaintiff-petitioner has failed to prove his case for declaration and said finding is upheld up to the Board of Revenue. Therefore, the concurrent finding of fact arrived at by all the Courts below does not require any interference for the simple reason that admittedly in the revenue record name of Shambhu Singh is entered and the petitioners are claiming right solely on the ground that late Hari Singh was government servant, therefore, name of Shambhu Singh, who is brother of late plaintiff Hari Singh, was got entered in the revenue record; but, in fact, he was benamidar of late Hari Singh. In my opinion, such plea cannot be accepted for deciding the issue for declaration of khatedari rights without cogent evidence. Therefore, this writ petition is dismissed." Seeking to challenge the orders aforesaid, the learned senior counsel has strenuously argued that the very basic submission of the petitioners that the findings on want of proof of the Taharir in question remains perverse, has not gone into the consideration of the Board of Revenue and the learned Single Judge. The learned counsel has referred to the statements of the witnesses and contended that the plaintiff has proved the document in question in accordance with law. The learned counsel further submitted that even the adverse finding regarding possession is perverse; and has referred to the reports as made by the concerning Land Record Inspectors (Annexs.7 and 8). After having given a thoughtful consideration to the entire matter, we are clearly of the view that the submissions made on behalf of the appellant fall short of making out a case for interference in intra-court appeal. In our view, the writ Court itself had a limited jurisdiction, only to consider whether the order as passed by the subordinate Authority was within the parameters of its jurisdiction or not, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sadhana Lodh Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.: (2003) 3 SCC 524:- ''7. The supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution is confined only to see whether an inferior court or tribunal has proceeded within its parameters and not to correct an error apparent on the face of the record, much less of an error of law. In exercising the supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court does not act as an appellate court or the tribunal. It is also not permissible to a High Court on a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution to review or re-weigh the evidence upon which the inferior court or tribunal purports to have passed the order or to correct errors of law in the decision.'' ;