Arun Bhansali, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against judgment dated 25.08.1995 passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer ('Board'), whereby, the appeal filed by the petitioners against judgment dated 10.07.1990 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur ('RAA') and judgment dated 27.12.1988 passed by the Assistant Collector, Head Quarters, Udaipur ('the Collector') has been rejected.
(2.) THE respondent filed a suit for declaration of Khudkasht under Section 90 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 ('the Act'), eviction of the defendants under Section 183 of the Act from land admeasuring 22 Bighas 14 Biswas situated at Dadiya, Tehsil Gogunda, for injunction under Section 92 and for appointment of Receiver under Section 212 of the Act on 19.10.1970; it was, inter alia, claimed in the suit that the land in question was recorded in the name of Shri Mahadev Ji Neelkanth Murti Virajman Mandir Gogunda; Sri Gangagir was its Shebait or Manager; initially the land was Maufi and after resumption of Maufi the plaintiff became its Khatedat tenant; the plaintiff has been undertaking the cultivation of the land over itself or through sijara and has been doing the same with different persons from time to time; about eight years back, the land was given to defendants, wherein, for three years they gave 50% of the produce and for last five years, the same has been stopped, therefore, oral notice was given, however, the same was not adverted to; it was further averred that despite the land being on sijara with the defendants, they have been acting against the interest of the plaintiff and had filed proceedings under Section 19 of the Act for getting the tenancy in their name, which was rejected on 12.07.1968 and appeal filed by them was dismissed by the Additional Collector, Udaipur on 12.08.1969 and the order of Tehsildar, Gogunda was maintained; another proceedings initiated by the defendants for correction of record was also rejected in the year 1953; it was claimed that the defendants were neither sharing the produce nor they were permitting the plaintiff from taking the produce from the portion of land cultivated by the plaintiff and were bent upon creating disturbance; the cause of action arose when the defendants refused to share the produce of sijara and created dispute when plaintiff wanted to remove the produce and, ultimately, prayed that the land be declared to be Khudkasht of the plaintiff, the defendants be evicted as trespassers and the land be ordered to be handed over to plaintiff; further, the damages were also sought from the defendants. The suit was contested by the petitioners -defendants claiming themselves to be tenants of the land in question and disputed that the plaintiff was Khatedar of the land in question; it was claimed that the defendants were Sikmi Kastkars of the land in question and, therefore, have become Khatedars of the land in question; they were not trespassers and were not in possession as Sijari and, therefore, the suit was not maintainable.
(3.) THE SDO framed fourteen issues; on behalf of both the sides several witnesses were examined and documents were produced; after arguments, the SDO held that the Jamabandi Mahakma Bandobast for Samvat 2007 (Exhibit -4) indicates the land as that of the plaintiff as Khudkasht and Pujari Gangagir as Sikmi and the said fact was proved by witnesses also; the plaintiff was entitled to file the suit, the extent of damages could not be ascertained, as the defendants were interfering, the plaintiff was entitled to permanent injunction, admission regarding question of law does not operate as res judicata and the plaintiff was entitled to order under Section 183 of the Act and, consequently, declared the land in question as Khudkasht of the plaintiff and ordered for eviction of the defendants.;