SUNIL KUMAR GARG, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the respondents on 29.7.1991 with a prayer that impugned judgment dtd. 17.2.1988 (Annex. 7) passed by the Assistant Collector, Suratgarh (respondent No. 3) by which the suit filed by petitioner Tahal Singh under Section 183 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 against the respondents No. 4 (Pahalwan Singh) and 5 (Avtar Singh) was dismissed, judgment dtd. 8.5.1991 (Annex. 8) passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Ajmer (respondent No. 2) by which the judgment dtd. 17.2.1988 (Annex. 7) passed by the Assistant Collector, Suratgarh (respondent No. 3) was affirmed and the judgment dtd. 10.7.1991 (Annex. 9) passed by the Board of Revenue (respondent No. 1) by which the Board of Revenue upheld the judgment dtd. 8.5.1991 (Annex. 8) passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Ajmer (respondent No. 2) be quashed and set aside and the respondents No. 4 (Pahalwan Singh) and 5 (Avtar Singh) be declared trespassers over the land in question. NOTE: It may be stated here that during pendency of writ petition, the petitioner Tahal Singh died and therefore, his legal representative Kalu Singh was brought on record.
(2.) THE facts as put forward by the petitioner are as under: (i) That 27 Bighas of land situated in Chak No. 1 FDM in square No. 80/336, Killa Nos. 24, 25, square No. 80/337 Killa Nos. 3 to 6 and square No. 80/337 Killa No. 1 -3, 7 -25 was in the possession of Tahal Singh (original petitioner) on temporary cultivation basis from Samvat year 2017 (year 1972) and this land was later on allotted to Tahal Singh (original petitioner) on permanent basis by the Assistant Commissioner, RCP, Rai Singhnagar camp Suratgarh vide allotment letter dtd. 19.12.1983 (Annex. 1). (ii) That out of 27 Bighas of land, the respondents No. 4 (Pahalwan Singh) and 5 (Avtar Singh) were interfering in the possession of the petitioner over the land situated in Square No. 80/377 Killa Nos. 7 and 8, measuring 2 Bighas, Killa No. 13 tro 19 measuring 7 Bighas and Killa No. 20 measuring 10 Biswas and Killa No. 22 measuring 10 Biswas total measuring 10 Bighas and 1 Biswa. Tahal Singh (original petitioner) therefore, moved an application before the Dy. Collector, RCP now IGNP and Deputy Collector vide his order dtd. 2.3.1984 ordered the SHO to take possession of the same. (iii) Further case of the petitioner is that on 14.8.1984, respondents No. 4 (Pahalwan Singh) and 5 (Avtar Singh) with the help of some other persons took forcible possession of above 10 bighas and 1 Biswa of land situated in Chak No. 1 FDM from Tahal Singh (original petitioner). (iv) That further case of the petitioner is that in respect of above land measuring 10 Bighas and 1 Biswa. Tahal Singh (original petitioner) filed a suit on 25.8.1984 (Annex. 2A) under Section 183 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1955) against the respondents No. 4 (Pahalwan Singh) and 5 (Avtar Singh) in the Court of Assistant Collector, Suratgarh (respondent No. 3) (v) That reply (Annex. 4) to the suit was filed by the respondent No. 4 (Pahalwan Singh) and 5 (Avtar Singh) on 29.5.1985. On behalf of Tahal Singh (original petitioner) Uda Ram, Halka Patwari was examined before the Assistant Collector, Suratgarh (respondent No. 3). Copy of statement of Halka Patwari is marked as Annex. 5. (vi) That the Assistant Collector (respondent No. 3) vide his judgment dtd. 17.2.1988 (Annex. 7) dismissed the suit filed by Tahal Singh. (vii) That being aggrieve by the judgment dtd. 17.2.1988 (Annex. 7) passed by the Assistant Collector, Suratgarh (respondent No. 3), the deceased preferred an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner. However, on the application of respondents No. 4 (Pahalwan Singh) and 5 (Avtar Singh) in the Board of Revenue, this appeal filed by the deceased was transferred to the Revenue Appellate Authority, Ajmer (respondent No. 2). (viii) That the Revenue Appellate Authority, Ajmer (respondent No. 2) vide its judgment dtd. 8.5.1991 (Annex. 8) dismissed the appeal filed by Tahal Singh (original petitioner) and affirmed the judgment dtd. 17.2.1988 (Annex. 7) passed by the Assistant Collector, Suratgarh (respondent No. 3) (ix) That being aggrieved by the judgment dtd. 8.5.1991 (Annex. 8) passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority (respondent No. 2), Tahal Singh (original petitioner) filed second appeal before the Board of Revenue (respondent No. 1) and the Board of Revenue vide its judgment dtd. 10.7.1991 (Annex. 9) dismissed the second appeal filed by Tahal Singh (original petitioner) and affirmed the judgment dtd. 8.5.1991 (Annex. 8) passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Ajmer (respondent No. 2). Hence, this writ petition with the abovementioned prayer. In this writ petition the following submissions have been raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner: (i) That the judgment dtd. 10.7.1991 (Annex. 9) passed by the Board of Revenue is palpably wrong as it was mainly based on the statement of Tahal Singh (original petitioner) given before the Assistant Colonisation Commissioner, Suratgarh (respondent No. 3). (ii) That the respondents No. 4 (Pahalwan Singh) and 5 (Avtar Singh) were not related to Tahal Singh and therefore, the findings recorded by the courts below in favour of the respondent No. 4 (Pahalwan Singh) and 5 (Avtar Singh) and against Tahal Singh (original petitioner) are perverse and should be set aside. (iii) That since the complaint was filed by respondent No. 4 (Pahalwan Singh) and the same was dismissed by the Assistant Colonisation Commissioner, RCP, Suratgarh (respondent No. 3) vide order dtd. 24.10.1985 (Annex. 11), from this point of view also, no case in favour of the respondents No. 4 (Pahalwan Singh) and 5 (Avtar Singh) was made out and therefore, the findings recorded by the courts below are erroneous one and should be set aside.
(3.) ON the other hand the learned Counsel for the respondents have supported the judgments passed by the courts below and have further submitted that under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the findings of facts recorded by the courts below should not be interfered by this Court and thus from this point of view, the writ petition should be dismissed.;