This order dismisses a writ petition challenging a Board of Revenue's decision upholding an appellate authority order that rejected a plea for declaration of title and possession regarding government land.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writs No. 25364/2018
----Petitioners
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sultan Singh Kuri Adv. with Mr. K.N. Sharma Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR
Order
29/11/2018
The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order of Board of Revenue dt. 1st August, 2018, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioners against the order
(2 of 3)
[CW-25364/2018]
of Revenue Appellate Authority, Ajmer dt. 7th December, 2007 has been dismissed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of Sub-Division Officer dt. 26th July, 2004, dismissing the suit of declaration of the petitioner was not proper, as the Court did not look into the relevant documents, which were produced in respect of possession and title.
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order dt. 26th July, 2004, was assailed before the Revenue Appellate Authority and the Revenue Appellate Authority also vide order dt. 7th December, 2007, dismissed the appeal without considering several pleas, which were raised in respect of title and possession. Counsel submitted that in fact documents marked as Exhibit 1 to Exhibit 15 were sufficient to prove the possession of the petitioners and yet the Appellate Authority has dismissed the appeal.
Counsel submitted that the Board of Revenue has not assigned any just cause and reason while dismissing the appeal filed against order of the Revenue Appellate Authority and SubDivision Officer, Ajmer.
Counsel submitted that the petitioners were in rightful possession since 1955, when the Tenancy Act came into force, and as such the documents which were produced clearly proved that petitioners were entitled to get a declaration from the Revenue Court.
This Court finds that the SDO, Ajmer, while passing the order dt. 26th July, 2004, has decided seven issues framed for consideration. The Appellate Court has also considered different
(3 of 3)
[CW-25364/2018]
pleas raised by the petitioners and the Board of Revenue too has looked into the entire matter to consider claim of the petitioners.
The Authorities have recorded a finding that petitioners were not only occupying the Government Land by way of encroachment but also did not have document in their favour to support title and possession.
This Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India does not deem it proper to interfere with the concurrent findings, which have been recorded by three different Courts.
Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed.
(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR),J
Monika/144
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the concurrent findings of record maintained by three different Courts regarding title and possession.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Panchu Gurjar
Barji Devi
State Of Rajasthan
Ashok Kumar Gaur
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
