Prem Shanker Asopa, J. - (1.) BY this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof for quashing of the judgment of the Sub Divisional Officer, Jaipur -I dt. 02.09.1996 (Anx.8) and those of Board of Revenue dt. 31.01.2003 (Anx.13) and 11.03.2003 (Anx.14) and has further prayed that the suit for correction of entries, declaration and perpetual injunction filed by the plaintiff -petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner') against the defendant non petitioners No. 6 to 16 may kindly be ordered to be decreed.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the relevant facts of the case, are as under: That the petitioner filed a revenue suit for correction of entries, declaration and perpetual injunction against the defendant on petitioners regarding 60 Bighas of land situated in Jamdoli, Tehsil and district Jaipur which had been allotted to Yasin Khan, father of the petitioner, on account of his being a soldier, by the erstwhile Jaipur State which had wrongly been entered partly as Sawai Chak and partly as Charagarh and had been further wrongly placed at the disposal of the Jaipur Development Authority (J.D.A.). The Patta issued by the erstwhile Jaipur State in favour of Yasin Khan, father of the petitioner, is on record as Annexure -3, who died on 08.05.1992. Subsequently, on the strength of the Will, suit was filed by the petitioner on 04.05.1994 before the Sub Divisional Officer, Jaipur -I.
(3.) J .D.A. filed written statement denying all facts and further contending that since the suit land had been partly entered as Sawai Chak and partly as Charagah, the same vested in the JDA under Section 64 of the Jaipur Development Authority Act, 1982 (in short 'the J.D.A. Act'). The Sub Divisional Officer, Jaipur -I framed five Issues out of which Issue No. 1 was with regard to the allotment of land to the father of the petitioner and other Issues relates regarding correction of entries, declaration and perpetual injunction. Issue No. 1 was decided in favour of the plaintiff and it was held that the petitioner's father Yasin Khan Soldier was entered as tenant of the suit land prior to new settlement. However, remaining Issues were decided against the petitioner (plaintiff).;