K.S.JHAVERI,J. - (1.) By way of this appeal, the appellant has assailed the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge whereby learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition preferred by the respondent being writ petition No.1105/85.
(2.) The facts of the case are that the dispute pertains to the land bearing khasra no.1, 683, 688, 686, 685, 684 (well) and 687 (well) sitauted at Village Gatore, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur (Raj.) which was admittedly the 'Mafi' land and never remained recorded as Khud Kasht land of Bhenru S/o Birda and Bhenru S/o Govinda. This fact is also not at all disputed that Sonia and his family members were having long possession over the said mafi land rather this fact is admitted by the respondents/defendants in their pleadings/statement. 2. 1 On 22.8.1955, a suit for declaration and injunction was filed by Sonia before the Assistant Collector for the cause of action of the dated 4.8.1955 as the defendants tried to dispossess him from the land in dispute by mentioning the fact that he and his family members are cultivating the land since last 40-45 years. The written statement was filed and it is contended that the land bearing khasra no.1, 683 and 688 belongs to Bhenur S/o Birda whereas the land of khasra number 686, 685, 684 (well), 687 belongs to Bhenru S/o Govind and contended that the land was mortgaged to one Shivnath and Shivnath handed over the said land for five years in Samvat 2007 to Sonia and others and the same was returned by Sonia and his family members to Shivnath in the Samvat year 2012. 2. 2 On 31.3.1987, the Assistant Collector dismissed the suit by recording such facts which are against the record that the plaintiff is merely tenant of the mortgagee and he failed to plead that he acquired the khatedari rights. On 28.12.1982, the Board of revenue partly allowed the appeal by taking note of the fact that (1) the disputed land is the mafi land and was the khud kasht land of the defendants. Mafi was resumed and there is an admission of the defendant that the compensation against the said resumption was received by the mafidar, (2) plaintiff was mortgagee's tenant and acquired the khatedari rights u/s 8 of Jaipur Tenancy Act, 1945 so far as the land of khasra number 686 and 688 is concerned, (3) in Samvat 2012, the plaintiff Sonia was recorded in possession. So far as the land of khasra no.1 is concerned, since Sonia and Bhinva were found in possession but Bhinva has filed the suit as such no decree was passed so far as with regard to the land of khasra no.1 is concerned and so far as the land of khasra no.683, 684 and 685 is concerned, the findings of the learned Board was that the said land was let out by Shivnath, the mortgagee, to Chandra and to the plaintiff, therefore, the claim of the plaintiff was rejected.
(3.) Counsel for the appellant has contended that learned Single Judge has committed serious error in allowing the writ petition inasmuch as Board of Revenue while considering the matter of the present appellant has considered the case rightly after appreciating the facts and taking into consideration the evidence on record and held in favour of the present appellant.;