Mohammad Rafiq, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition filed by the petitioner -Tola Ram seeks to challenge the order dated 6.5.2010 passed by the Board of Revenue, whereby it has accepted the reference made to it by the Additional Collector, Jhalawar under Section 82 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 vide order dated 18.12.1999 and set aside the order passed by the SDO dated 27.12.1995, whereby petitioner was recorded as khatedar of the land of khasra No. 433 measuring 4 bigha 10 biswa.
(2.) THE facts of the case are that the Smt. Onkari Bai, mother of Kanchan Bai filed a suit No. 324/81 under Section 188 and 183 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act before the learned Additional Collector and Magistrate, Bhawani Mandi against the petitioner. In the suit, she has pleaded that the land of khasra Nos. 433 measuring 4 bigha and 10 biswa, 452 measuring 6 bigha and 4 biswa, 463 measuring 2 bigha and 17 biswa, 454 measuring 8 bigha, 455 measuring 18 bigha, 456 measuring 1 bigha, 477 measuring 1 bigha, totaling 15 bigha and 14 biswa, which she used to cultivate through son of younger brother of her husband, Kanwar Lal, who was plaintiff No. 2. Father of Kanwar Lal, Shri Ram Lal was employee with Tola Ram, Radhey Shyam etc. about 10 years ago. Employer were claiming Rs. 3,000, which was due on him, apart from the interest on such amount. They had forcibly taken possession of the land of khasra No. 433 and prevented the plaintiff from entering of land. Petitioner Tola Ram, Radhey Shyam and others who were defendants in the suit contested the suit. They also filed counter claim. They maintained that this land was sold to them by the plaintiff in Svt. 2010 and since then they are in possession of the same. The plaintiff has no locus to file the suit. The suit was dismissed by the learned SDO by order dated 20.2.1985 and no relief was granted to both the parties. Petitioner -Tola Ram then filed a suit wherein it was alleged that apart from the earlier judgment and decree passed twice, the application of Onkari Bai was rejected by Tehsildar Pachpahad on 9.6.1989 and 28.11.1992. She has wrongly been shown as Khatedar of the land in dispute and wants to forcibly take possession of the land. The petitioner has acquired right and title in the land in dispute by adverse possession and he should be declared khatedar -tenant thereof. Petitioner as plaintiff in the suit produced four witnesses in support of his case. The SDO, Bhawani Mandi decided the suit ex -parte vide judgment dated 27.12.1995 holding that the petitioner Tola Ram has acquired the title in the disputed land by adverse possession and right of the defendant Kanchan Bai to acquire possession has come to an end after expiry of 12 years of the date of such adverse possession. The possession of Tola Ram by judgment of Assistant Collector 20.2.1985 has been proved at least 6 -7 years before that date. In between, the suit of the defendant u/s. 183 and 183(b) for recovery of possession has been dismissed by Tehsildar on 20.2.1985, thus the possession of the petitioner -plaintiff Tola Ram over the disputed land was for more than 15 years. The learned SDO, therefore declared him as khatedar -tenant.
(3.) RESPONDENT No. 2 -Tehsildar, Pachpahad, District Jhalawar filed an application for making reference under Section 82 of the said Act before the Additional Collector on 23.5.1997 inter alia on the premise that the land of khasra No. 433 measuring 4 bigha 10 biswa was entered in the name of Smt. Kanchan Bai W/o. Shri Rama Chamar situated in Village Anwali Kala Tehsil Pachpahad, District Jhalawar. Smt. Kanchan Bai belongs to Schedule Caste, whereas petitioner belongs to Dhakar community. He purchased the said land from Onkari Bai, mother of Kanchan Bai in Samvat 2010 and paid a sum of Rs. 95. Petitioner has received the possession of the said land by an unregistered sale deed executed between the parties over the land in Samvat 2010. Petitioner by collusion with the defendant -Kanchan Bai obtained collusive decree on 27.12.1995 in respect of the land of Scheduled Caste, which is in breach of the bar contained in Section 42(b) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. Tola Ram in his plaint so filed claimed that he purchased the land from Onkari Bai, mother of Kanchan Bai in Svt. 2010 from Panna, father of Kanchan and husband of Onkari Bai and it was wrongly asserted by him that he was in possession of the land since then. Neither any documentary proof, nor any khasra girdawari was produced to prove his possession, nor any sale deed was produced to substantiate the factum of sale. Witnesses Mathura Lal P.W. 1, Valaram PW2, Ram Narayan PW3 and Shankar Lal PW4 were produced in oral evidence. Rama Chamar, husband of Kanchan Bai and son in law of Panna and Onkari Bai have stated before this Court that they have no objection if the land in dispute is recorded in the khatedari of Tola Ram. Kanwar Lal S/o. Rama Chamar has also filed written statement that he does not want to contest the matter. This proves that the decree has been obtained by collusion in respect of land of person belonging to Scheduled Caste, which is hit by Section 42(b) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act.;