Bhanwar Lal And Ors State Of Rajasthan

The instant bunch of appeals under Article 224 of the Constitution of India read with Rule 134 of Rajasthan High Court Rules, has been preferred by respective appellants for assailing the order dated 16.1.2019 passed by learned Single Bench of this Court in a bunch of writ petitions led by S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.1966/2018 whereby, the writ petitions preferred by the respective petitioners, were rejected.

Since the appeals are directed against a common judgment passed by learned Single Bench, the same are being decided together by this single order.

Facts in brief:-

The Tehsildar, Raipur initiated proceedings under Section 91 of the Land Revenue Act, 1956 against the petitioners seeking their eviction from the land in question as trespassers. The petitioners preferred an appeal before the Additional District Collector, Bhilwara which was dismissed on 30.11.1992. The second appeal preferred by the petitioners was also dismissed on 25.3.1995. A revision was also preferred against these orders before the Board of Revenue, which was rejected summarily by order dated 13.10.1995. However, despite the culmination of these proceedings, the petitioners somehow managed to retain in possession over the land in question and thus, fresh proceedings were instituted by the Tehsildar Raipur for eviction of the petitioners and after giving them an opportunity of hearing, they were directed to be evicted from the land which as per the revenue record, was set apart for public purposes. The fresh order dated 21.05.2007 passed by the Tehsildar Raipur was reversed by the Additional Collector, Bhilwara in appeal vide order dated 26.9.2007. The private respondents filed a second appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, which allowed the appeal by order dated 16.6.2009 and restored the order passed by the Tehsildar, directing eviction of the petitioners from the suit land. The petitioners preferred revisions against the orders of the Revenue Appellate Authority before the Board of Revnue, which were partly allowed. The Single Member of Board of Revenue, while setting aside the order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, remanded the matter to the Tehsildar Raipur to make a detailed inquiry on specified points and pass a fresh order. The private respondents challenged the order of learned Single Member by preferring Special Appeals before the Special Bench of the Board of Revenue which were allowed by judgment dated 28.12.2017 which was assailed in the bunch of writ petitions, which have been rejected by the order dated 16.1.2019.

Learned counsel Shri Shishodia and Shri Kawadia have filed an application under Order 47 Rule 27 C.P.C. in SAW No.112/2019 praying therein for taking on record certain documents and the documents.

Shri Vinay Jain, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, prayed for an opportunity to file reply to the application upon which, Shri Shishodia urged that the matters may be considered without taking into account the application and the documents. Accordingly, we have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties on admission.

The contention advanced by Shri Shishodia and Shri Kawadia was that the judgment dated 16.01.2019 passed by learned Single Bench which is impugned in the instant bunch of appeals, is absolutely perverse and illegal besides having been passed in gross deterrence to the admitted position on record. Their fervent plea was based on the reply to the writ petition filed on behalf of the State Authorities wherein, the fact of conversion of the disputed chunk of land in favour of the society, has not been disputed. They thus urged that once the question regarding conversion proceedings has been decided in favour of the petitioners, manifestly, there was no onus upon the petitioners, or the society to establish ownership over the land in dispute by way of documentary proof or otherwise. They thus urged that the impugned judgment passed by learned Single Bench deserves to be quashed and set aside and as a consequence, the orders passed by Board of Revenue, Ajmer; Revenue Appellate Authority, Bhilwara and the Tehsildar, Raipur directing eviction of the petitioners from the land measuring 0.19 hectare of Khasra No.4707/1361, village Borana, Tehsil Raipur, District Bhilwara also deserve to be reversed.

We have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the impugned orders and material available on record.

Suffice it to say that it is virtually an admitted position on record that the land in question is recorded as "Sri Po Bharai Sthan Deh Samast Asamiyan" in the revenue record. This finding which is a finding on facts, has been affirmed in the orders passed by Tehsildar, Raipur; the Additional Collector, Bhilwara; the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bhilwara as well as the Board of Revenue, Ajmer. The learned Single Bench of this Court has considered the record threadbare and assigned strong reasoning in the impugned judgment to affirm these findings. A pertinent observation was made by learned Single Bench in its order that no document pertaining to the ownership claim setforth by the petitioners or the society in question was placed on record in any of these proceedings. In this background, learned Single Bench held that it was not clear as to how the application preferred by the society for conversion of the land for residential purposes was entertained by the prescribed authority. After holding so, the learned Single Bench went on to confirm the findings of the courts below that the petitioners were encroachers on public land and the direction given by the Board of Revenue upholding the order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bhilwara directing restoration of the land in the revenue record in the name of "Sri Po Bharai Sthan Deh Samast Asamiyan" was affirmed.

After having appreciated the arguments advanced at the bar and after going through the orders placed on record including the impugned order passed by learned Single Bench of this Court, we are of the firm opinion that the factual and legal position was appreciated and evaluated by learned Single Bench in an absolutely apropos manner while affirming the findings recorded in the Board of Revenue's order that the petitioners were rank trespassers on public land which was not available for allotment. The order of conversions on which the petitioners relied upon were rightly held to be shady and dubious and accordingly, the writ petitions were justly rejected by the impugned judgment dated 16.1.2019 which does not suffer from any illegality, infirmity or perversity whatsoever warranting interference in the Letters Patent Appellate jurisdiction of this court.

As a consequence, we find no merit in these appeals which are dismissed summarily.

A copy of this order be placed in each file.