K.S.JHAVERI,J. - (1.) By way of this appeal, the appellants have challenged the rejection of review by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 19th August, 2002.
(2.) The brief facts of the case are that Thakur Sultan Singh @ Surtan Singh issued a patta on Badra Budi 13 Samvat 1917 (= year 1860) in favour of the ancestors of the appellants Shri Parasram etc. for agricultural land admeasuring about 250 bighas. Since then the said land is in their continuous cultivatory possession and the rent was regularly paid to the Thikana (Jagirdar). The patta issued by Thikana was filed on record of the Writ petition and was not denied. Thikana Pranhera was also under the management of the Court of Wards and the rent receipts issued by the Court of Wards in the year 1913 and 1923 along with the receipts issued by the Thikana in the year 1929, 1936 and 1938 were filed which were not denied. There had been family settlement in respect of the above land among the members of the family and accordingly the revenue records were also corrected and mutation was effected in 1960 and separate Khatas were accepted by the landholder Tehsildar. The rent was bifurcated and separate Jamabandis were prepared. The land ceiling of deceased Shankarlal was reopened on 15th January, 1977 by the State Government with a direction to the Additional Collector, Ajmer to reconsider the case. Notice was issued to the deceased against which certain objections were taken by him. The State has produced the Jamabandi before the Collector. The Additional Collector vide order dated 16th September, 1980 had reached the finding that the deceased was in possession of 19.31 standard acres as excess land and had passed the order for acquisition of the excess ceiling area. Again the said order the deceased preferred appeal before the Board of Revenue but the same was dismissed vide order dated 2nd September, 1985. Aggived by the judgment and Order of the learned Single Judge the appellants filed a Special Appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court. The appellants also presented an application under Order 41, Rule 27 for taking on record certain documents which were not on record earlier and which were crucial in deciding the matter, during the course of hearing but the same was not decided. The Special Appeal of the appellants was dismissed vide impugned judgment and order dated 8.05.200. The appellants filed Special Leave to Appeal. The Special Leave petition was dismissed as withdrawn in order to file review petition in the High Court. The review petition filed before the Division Bench was dismissed with liberty to file review petition before Single Bench. Review petition filed before the learned Single bench has been dismissed vide order dated 6.12.1999.
(3.) Counsel for the appellant contended that all throughout the appellant is deprived of his legitimate right. The argument of the appellant is that the order of re-opening was without jurisdiction and dependency point as well as re-opening point were not considered by the earlier Court.;