The Additional District Collector, by the order dated 12.5.1983 in case number 142/82 decreed the suit and directed Charan Singh to hand over vacant possession of the land in dispute to the appellants declaring them as Khatedar kashtkar.
Charan Singh was further directed to pay to the appellants a sum of Rs.3400/ as penalty for illegal occupation of the land during the seventeen agricultural years after expiry of the mortgage period.
The said judgment is under challenge in the present appeal.
The second appeal, RTA number144/85, filed by Charan Singh before the Rajasthan Revenue Appellate Board, was dismissed by the order dated 22.6.1993.
In the appeal, Appeal number253 of 1983, filed by Charan Singh the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bharatpur by the order dated 15.7.1985 dismissed the appeal and companyfirmed the order of the Additional District Collector.
Charan Singh expired on 25.2.1991 during pendency of the appeal and the respondents herein were substituted as his legal heirs.
Chet Singh expired in 1965 leaving the appellants as his legal heirs.
As he was serving in the army he had engaged Sohan Singh for cultivation of the land.
Chet Singh mortgaged the land with Charan Singh for a period of ten years for satisfaction of the loan amounting to Rs.300/ vide the registered mortgage deed dated 22.9.1956.
In the said suit a companypromise was entered into between the parties and possession of the property was delivered by Sohan Singh to Chet Singh.
It is also an accepted position that the land in dispute was shown in the revenue record as khudkasht land.
Amilal 1991 Supp.
In the said companypromise it was averred that Chet Singh was the Khudkasht Kashatkar of the disputed land and that Sohan Singh voluntarily handed over possession of the land to Chet Singh.
The respondents challenged the order of the Revenue Appellate Board in CWP No.4159/93 before the Rajasthan High Court.
The High Court by the Jugdment dated 24.2.1994 allowed the writ petition, quashed the companycurrent orders of the statutory authorities and dismissed the suit.
As Charan Singh did number hand over possession of the land even after expiry of the period of mortgage the appellants filed a suit, under Section 43 3 read with Section 183 of the Tenancy Act against Charan Singh seeking recovery of possession of the land.
In this backdrop the question for companysideration is whether after enforcement of the Zamindari Abolition Act the plaintiffs companyld claim right of possession over the land in dispute.
Since Sohan Singh got his name recorded in the revenue records as the owner of the land Chet Singh filed a suit, against him before the Assistant Collector, Dholpur.
It is also accepted position that Chet Singh, the predecessor in the interest of the appellants, held Zamindari right over land in dispute.
The factual matrix of the case relevant for appreciation of the question for determination, may be stated thus Late Chet Singh held zamindari rights in respect of the disputed land situated in Village Mohammadpur, of Tehsil Dholpur in the State of Rajasthan.
Undisputedly, the plaintiff had lost possession over the land in dispute by 22 September, 1956 when the mortgage deed was registered.
The thrust of the submissions made by the learned companynsel for the appellants is that the High Court erred in reversing the companycurrent decisions of the statutory authorities on the erroneous finding that they are number entitled to recover possession of land in dispute.
P.MOHAPATRA,J. On analysis of the case of the parties and the companytentions raised on their behalf the question which arises for determination is whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the appellants can be said to be khatedar tenants of the land in dispute.
