- (1.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the appellants and having examined the material placed on record, we are unable to find any reason to consider interference in the order dated 21.12.2011 whereby the learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the writ petition (CWP No. 11887/2011 : Ganga Ram & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) as filed by the petitioners- appellants after finding no case for interference in the concurrent findings on the facts as recorded by the three subordinate Revenue Courts.
(2.) THE learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the law remains settled that the ocular evidence could also form the basis of declaration of khatedari rights and the claim of the appellants cannot be declined merely for being based on ocular evidence. However, the argument remains bereft of substance for the reason that the subordinate Courts have considered the entire record and thereafter found that the claim of the petitioners- appellants of the khatedari rights over the land in question was contradicted by the documentary evidence. THE Courts even found the very fundamental facts as asserted by the petitioners-appellants about their relationship with the other person in possession namely, Mamraj son of Bhomaram, as nephew-uncle to be not proved. The learned Single Judge has taken a comprehensive view of the matter and found no case for interference while observing thus,- "7. It is to be noticed that in the instant case, the ocular evidence of the petitioners has been discarded by the courts below as not truthful and reliable keeping in view the documentary evidence i.e. revenue record showing that the petitioners were not in old possession of the land in question as alleged. It is also pertinent to note that while considering the ocular evidence produced by the petitioners, the Board has observed that the statements of the witnesses are stereo type and very general. The Board has also noticed that out of the three witnesses produced by the petitioners, two were only 6-7 years of age in Samvat 2012 and yet they have made assertions that the land is ancestral out of joint Hindu family and is in possession of the petitioners since 2012. While considering the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners regrading admissibility of the ocular evidence, the Board has observed that ocular evidence is of consequence when no other direct evidence is available. Thus, the learned counsel is not justified in contending that the ocular evidence has been discarded by the Board solely on the ground that documentary evidence is not produced." The matter being concluded with the concurrent findings on facts, the learned Single Judge cannot be said to be unjustified in declining to interfere in the writ jurisdiction. No case for interference is made out in this intra-court appeal. The appeal fails and is, therefore, dismissed.;