Arun Bhansali, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against judgment dated 07.09.2012 passed by the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan ('Board'), whereby, the appeal filed by the petitioner against judgment dated 05.03.1993 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner ('RAA') has been dismissed.
(2.) PLAINTIFFS - Mst. Lichma, Mst. Dakha, Mst. Bhaga and Mst. Sugani all daughters of Chundas filed a suit for declaration, partition and permanent injunction against Hanuman Das and Onkar Das, their brothers and certain transferees from them; it was, inter alia, claimed in the suit that the land in dispute belonged to deceased Chundas, who expired in the year 1968 and the plaintiffs - all daughters of Chundas were his legal heirs along with Hanuman Das and Onkar Das and have equal share in the land in question; it was submitted that the land has been got mutated in the name of Hanuman Das and he has transferred the land without any authority of law and, therefore, the sale deeds are ab initio void and prayed that the sale deeds be cancelled and declared void, the land in question be partitioned and injunction be issued against the defendants not to transfer the land. The S.D.O. framed six issues and came to the conclusion that in Samvat Year 2012 Hanuman Das was the Khatedar of the land in question and, therefore, under Section 15 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 he was recorded as Khatedar and, as such, the plaintiffs cannot claim any right; regarding the documents Exhibit -3 to Exhibit -18 produced by the plaintiffs, which were the revenue records pertaining to Samvat year 1987 to 2011, it was observed that Chundas was not recorded as Khatedar and as by mutation dated 23.11.1957 the land has been recorded in the name of Hanuman Das, he was entitled to transfer the land and the plaintiffs had no share in the land in question and, consequently, dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs.
(3.) THE RAA on an appeal filed by the plaintiffs came to the conclusion that from the revenue records i.e. Exhibits -3 to 18, it is apparent that it was Chundas only, who was in possession of the land in question and, therefore, the revenue entries indicating the name of Hanuman Das were incorrect and there was no requirement to get the revenue record corrected in view of the suit for declaration.;