Prakash Tatia, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE petitioners being aggrieved against the judgment and decree of the Board of Revenue dt. 06.09.1990 have preferred this writ petition. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiffs Net Ram and Madan Lal filed suit for declaration and injunction against defendants Chandu and Nanak in the Court of Assistant Collector, Nohar on 20.04.1965. According to the plaintiffs, who are petitioners in this writ petition, a big land of khasra No. 323 is situated in Village Rohi in Tehsil Nohar. On one part of this land which was numbered as 4 Min measuring 25 bighas 12 biswas, the plaintiffs were in cultivatory possession since Samwat Year 2011. Since the land of even said Min 4 of khasra No. 323 itself was big and some other persons were also in possession of the land of Min 4, some wrong entries have been made by the revenue officers in the revenue record. According to the plaintiffs, their cultivation on the land measuring 25 bighas 12 biswas was duly recorded in some of the khasra girdawaries which records cultivation only. The plaintiffs came to know that their names have not been entered in the jamabandi which is record of right, then the plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration and injunction so that they may get their khatedari right declared through the Court of law.
(3.) DEFENDANTS Chandu and Nanak, who are respondents in this writ petition, submitted written statement and as per the averments of the defendants, the defendant Chandu in his written statement stated that he was in possession of 50 bighas of land of 4 Min and he did not cultivate 10 bighas land out of that 50 bighas land and in Samwat Year 2014, the plaintiffs encroached upon defendant Chandu 's 10 bighas land. Defendant Chandu further pleaded that by collusion, the plaintiffs got their names entered in the khasra girdawari of the said land of defendant Chandu. Defendant also took plea that the land was jagir land earlier and the defendant took this land from Jagirdar for cultivating. The pleadings of defendant Chandu were some what vague in view of the fact that at some places, it is mentioned that defendant Chandu surrendered 10 bighas of total land. It is also stated that Chandu filed a suit for eviction of the plaintiffs but it appears that in his statement before the trial Court, he admitted that he did not file any suit for possession against the plaintiffs. Defendant Nanak also stated that some of his land has been encroached upon the plaintiffs.;