- (1.) By this appeal, a challenge is made to the order of the learned Single Judge dated 01st July, 2008. The appellant had challenged the order of Board of Revenue as well as of the Revenue Appellate Authority.
(2.) A suit for possession was filed by the non-appellant/s for 12 Bighas and 12 Biswas out of total land of 50 Bighas and 7 Biswas of the Khasra No.611. It was alleged that appellant has entered upon a land of the non-appellant, thus possession be restored. The suit was decreed in favour of the non-appellant on 23rd August, 1973. On an appeal preferred by the appellant herein, the decree was set aside with remand of the case to the Assistant Collector, Bayana, Bharatpur. Learned Assistant Collector, Bayana again decreed the suit vide order dated 11th September, 1985. The non-appellant herein filed an appeal, which was allowed vide order dated 22nd May, 1992 with the direction to decide the issue afresh and thereby, the case was again remanded to the Assistant Collector. It was with the direction to frame additional issues and to decide the suit accordingly. The appellant challenged the order of Revenue Appellate Authority before the Board of Revenue. The Board set aside the order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority vide its order dated 24th June, 1996. The appellant challenged the order of Board of Revenue by maintaining a writ petition but finding no merit, it was dismissed with cost of Rs. 25,000/-.
(3.) The learned Single Judge found that in a suit filed by the non-appellant under Section 183 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act (for short "the Act "), the appellant contested it based on Jamabandi of Samwat 2016 but no document to this effect was filed. It was further found that in the Samwat 2008- 2011, name of the non-appellant Ram Chandra Jatav was recorded as Khatedar and again in the Samwat 2013-16. The aforesaid fact was relevant as the land was shown in the name of a member of scheduled caste. For the Samwat 2012, "Jamabandi " was prepared based on alleged settlement/agreement between the parties on 22nd August, 1963. No entry could have been made in the name of the appellants as the land was belonging to member of scheduled caste, thus was not liable to be transferred to a member of general caste. It could not have been even by settlement or compromise. The Board of Revenue thus found that even if the compromise was entered between the parties, it was hit by Section 42 of the Act. The "Jamabandi " was taken into consideration, which has not been supported by "Khatoni " record. In any case, when land was originally belonging to a member of scheduled caste, it was not liable to be transferred to a general caste candidate in violation of Section 42 of the Act.;