M.N. Bhandari, J. - (1.) WITH consent of the parties, writ petition is heard finally.
(2.) THE petitioner preferred a suit under sections 88 and 183 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. It is stated that the petitioners had given land to the respondents to use it on sharing basis however, the respondents are not giving possession. The possession was given long back, however it was only on sharing basis. The respondents stopped giving share to the petitioners in previous two years. The suit preferred by the petitioners for possession was dismissed. The appeal preferred by the petitioners before the Revenue Appellate Authority and second appeal before the Board of Revenue were also dismissed. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the land in dispute is khatedari land of the petitioners and it was never sold to the respondents. A fraudulent deed was produced to show transaction of the land though the document aforesaid was not even stamped and registered thus was not admissible in evidence. The respondents even claimed adverse possession over the land though as per the Full Bench decision of the Board of Revenue, the plea of adverse possession/permissive possession is applicable to revenue suit. Accordingly, dismissal of the suit so as the appeals by the courts below was not proper. This is more so when no finding has been recorded regarding allegation of forged document created by the respondents.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for respondents, on the other hand, submits that allegation made by the petitioners against sale document was considered with a specific finding holding it to be not a forged document. In fact land in dispute was sold by the grand father of the petitioners to the grand father of the private respondents. The respondents are in possession of land from the year 1963 as would be clear from 'Girdawari'. The petitioners never made a claim for the land in dispute since then and there is no endorsement of giving piece of land to the respondents to use it on sharing basis. The courts below have recorded concurrent finding of fact thus this court may not interfere in findings while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.;