- (1.) BY this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the judgment and decree dated 31.5.1996 (Annex.13) passed by the Assistant Collector, Sangriya whereby the suit for division of holdings and for permanent injunction filed by one Jangir Singh has been decreed. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 31.3.1998 (Annex.15) passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Hanumangarh and the order dated 20.4.1998 ((Annex.16) passed by the Board of Revenue Ajmer whereby appeals filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the respondent Jangir Singh filed a revenue suit before the Assistant Collector, Sangariya for division of holdings and for permanent injunction. The defendants in the said suit had not appeared despite service and as such ex - parte proceedings were drawn against them. The written statement was filed on behalf of the State wherein the State has admitted the averments of the plaint and the learned Additional Collector, Sangariya after recording the evidence of Jangir Singh and after taking into consideration the documentary evidence has decreed the suit vide its judgment and decree dated 31.5.1996. The petitioner filed an appeal against the said judgment and decree while claiming that a portion of land, partitioned through the judgment and decree dated 31.5.1996, was exchanged by him with one Smt. Amarjeet Kaur, one of the defendants in the suit preferred by the respondent Jangir Singh, through a registered Exchange Deed (Tabadalanama) dated 9.6.1976 and is in possession of the said portion of the land and, therefore, he was a necessary party in the revenue suit, but the trial court without impleading him as party has decreed the suit in favour of Jangir Singh. The said appeal filed by the petitioner before the revenue appellate authority was dismissed on 31.3.1998 while holding that the petitioner has no locus standi in the matter. The second appeal preferred by the petitioner against the judgment and decree of the Revenue Appellate Authority dated 31.3.1998 was also dismissed by the Board of Revenue in limine vide judgment dated 20.4.1998. While dismissing the second appeal, the learned Board of Revenue in its judgment dated 20.4.1998 has observed as under: - "......It is significant to notice here that no mutation has been attested up till now with regard to the land in dispute which the appellant is claiming to be in his possession. No such document was produced before the learned appellate Court to show the possession over the disputed land by the appellate. It is further to be seen that the appellant has filed the appeal after a long delay and the appeal before the learned Revenue Appellate Authority was filed on the basis of the knowledge which he got when he went to deposit the rent of the land in dispute on 5.5.1997. In our opinion when there was no dispute about the fact that the land in dispute was in the joint tenency of the plaintiff and other defendants, as such the necessary parties in the suit were recorded a co - tenants. The appellant has based his claim on the basis of a registered 'Tabadlanama' which was obtained by him from Shrimati Amarjit kaur who was defendant in the suit. What was the reason why from 1976 to till date no steps have been taken with regard to mutation etc. of the land in dispute and further in view of settled position of law that under Section 53 of the Act if the land is transferred by sale of joint holdings of specific khasra number without division then that will not be in accordance with the provisions of Section 53 A of the Act and the sale deed will be bad in law........ .........In the present matter in view of the settled position of law it is clear that the land in dispute was in the joint tenancy and the appellant is said to have obtained a 'Tabadlanama' from respondent No.2 with regard to part of the land in the year 1976 and till date no steps have been taken to get entries made in the revenue record in his name. Thus it appears that this 'Tabadlanama' will create no right in favour of the appellant and has not at all been acted upon and further no certified copy of the original was ever filed before the learned appellate Court and further without division of holdings no specific khasra numbers can be transferred. It is to be seen that the learned appellate Court has found that as far as the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the decree was passed against a deed person is concerned is not tenanbe because no such documents were produced before the first appellate Court to prove the same. The learned first appellate Court further found that the appellant claims himself to be in possession over the disputed land since 1976 and took the plea of adverse possession, as such his rights, if any, required to be determined in the disputed land only when a declaratory suit is filed before the competent Court of jurisdiction. The findings recorded by the learned first appellate Court after discussing the arguments of the learned counsel in the light of the judgment and decree awarded by the learned trial Court as such appears to be legal, just and proper and there appears to be no illegality or infermity in the impugned judgment of the learned first appellate Court. It further appears that the appellant has no locus standi in the present matter to file the appeals in view of the facts and circumstances of the case in as much as that the alleged 'Tabadlanama' was never acted upon. ........ .........It is also to be noticed here that the registered 'Tabadlanama' has been made the sole basis of his claim by the appellant and neither the registered nor certified copy of the 'Tabadlanama' was produced before the learned first appellate Court. Even otherwise the so called 'Tabadlanama' which has not been acted upon till date and no entries having been made in the revenue record on the basis of 'Tabadlanama' and no steps have been taken by the appellant till now on the basis of the 'Tabadlanama' only raises suspicion about the same. The plaintiff filed the suit correctly against those persons who were the recorded khatedars. The appellant is not the recorded khatedar as such it cannot be said that the plaintiff has committed any illegality in not arraying the appellant as defendant in the suit as it was not essential. We have examined the matter thoroughly and we are of the view that the appeal filed before the learned first appellate Court by the appellant has been rightly dismissed......"
(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has raised similar arguments which have been considered and rejected by the Board of the Revenue. He has also submitted that when the petitioner has got land through Exchange Deed (Tabadalanama) from one of the co -tenants, he is entitled to prefer the appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the Assistant Collector, Sangariya in the suit filed by the respondent Jangir Singh and the learned court below has wrongly held that the petitioner has no locus standi to file the appeal against the impugned judgment and decree.;