Prakash Tatia, J. - (1.) The writ petitioners' suit for declaration of Khatedari right for the agricultural land, referred in the suit, was dismissed by the trial court, holding it as barred by principle of res judicata under Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, vide judgment and decree dated 21.5.1999. The writ petitioners' appeal against the said order was dismissed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Hanumangarh vide order dated 23.6.2000 and second appeal too was dismissed by the Board of Revenue vide order dated 12.9.2000. Then the petitioners have preferred S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 3985/2000 which was dismissed in limine by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 8.11.2000. Hence this special appeal.
(2.) The facts which are not in dispute are that petitioners' predecessor Rati Ram submitted an application before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Nohar alleging that the land in dispute was allotted to him by the Assistant Collector by the order 20.10.1951 for the reason that he was kotwal of the village. However, this fact was disputed by respondents' predecessor Ishar and Rati Ram's application was rejected by the Sub-Divisional Officer by order dated 8.7.1968 and the appeal against that order was dismissed by the Revenue Appellate Authority on 22.7.1969. Then the matter came before the Board of Revenue, Ajmer in revision and that revision petition was allowed by the Board of Revenue vide order dated 6.10.1971 and the matter was remanded to the Sub- Divisional Officer after setting aside orders dated 22.7.1969 and 8.7.1968. The Board of Revenue directed the Sub-Divisional Officer to examine the relevant record of the Colonisation Department and thereafter to pass proper order after hearing both the parties. After remand, the Sub-Divisional Officer passed the order dated 15.9.1980 and again rejected the application of the petitioner-applicant Rati Ram and maintained the order dated 8.7.1968. Then again appeal was preferred to challenge the order dated 15.9.1980 of the Sub-Divisional Officer before the Revenue Appellant Authority which was dismissed vide order dated 13.4.1991 and then revision was preferred before the Board of Revenue by the successors of deceased Rati Ram, which too was dismissed by order dated 12.3.1997. On the basis of these proceedings initiated on the application filed by deceased Rati Ram, the defendants-respondents in the regular suit, pleaded that the suit filed by the appellants-plaintiffs is barred by principle of res judicata. The legal question which was raised before all the courts below and which was rejected, was the question that whether the earlier proceeding initiated by way of application and order passed in that proceeding since attained finality, therefore, whether the suit of the plaintiffs is barred by principle of res judicata?
(3.) It is not in dispute that the earlier round of proceedings were not in a regularly instituted suit and that was the proceeding initiated on the application, which according to the learned counsel for the parties, was submitted under Section 193 of the Rajathan Tenancy Act, 1955, which provides grant of khatedari tenancy right to village servant. Section 193 of the Act of 1955 is as under:- "193. Disposal of land when services are no longer required- If the Collector declares that the services rendered by a village servant are no longer required such village servant shall become a "khatedar tenant" of his village service grant and shall be liable to pay rent accordingly.";