However, it seems that those persons were able to create a dent in the minds of the members of the Board of Revenue and thus it made the following observations It apparently did number occur to the Assistant Collector that in fact the jamabandi is the settlement record brought up to date and it is this annual register khatauni which has to be seen while applying Section 5 4 of the Zamindari and Biswedari Abolition Act.
Five suits were filed by the respective appellants in these appeals against the State of Rajasthan in the Court of the Assistant Collector, Bharatpur seeking declaration that by virtue of Section 5 4 of the Rajasthan Zamindari and Biswedari Abolition Act, 1959 they had become Khatedars for they were owners in actual cultivation over the said area on the crucial date.
In support of their claim the appellants, the plaintiffs therein, produced revenue records such as jamabandis of the Samvat 2002, 2006, 2018 and 2026 showing companysistent actual possession over the lands claimed by them.
It appears that jamabandi for the Samvat 2015 was number produced by either party and this jamabandi companyld have been the closest to the date on which the zamindari and biswedari under the Act was abolished.
These appeals are directed against a companymon order dated July 28, 1981 made by the High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench in Civil Writ Petition Nos.
164 to 168 of 1977.
Some outsiders, interested in disestablishing the rights of the plaintiffs appellants, filed an appeal before the First Appellate Authority against the judgment and decree of the Assistant Collector.
It is number possible for us to set aside the orders of the trial companyrt in the appellate proceedings because those orders are number under challenge on merits.
The first appeals filed by the State of Rajasthan before the Revenue Appellate Authority were dismissed.
The First Appellate Authority spurned the attempt holding those persons as having numberlocus standi.
The orders of the lower companyrts and the decrees passed by them thus got merged in the judgments and decrees of the Board of Revenue.
The gap therein was filled by the plaintiffs appellants by production of oral evidence which the trial companyrt believed.
The cause for these appeals is a direction issued by the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, a functionary established under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, empowered, in the regular companyrse, to hear second appeals.
The khudkasht has to be recorded as such in the jamabandi prior to the date of vesting.
The only witness examined by the State being the patwari of the village companyld be of numberassistance to defend the suit.
The second appeals by the State to the Board of Revenue too were dismissed.
Further attempt by them in the second appeal before the Board of Revenue met the same fate.
The suits were companytested by the State of Rajasthan.
Oral evidence may be useful for establishing possession but such evidence does number meet the requirements of the section.
As a result the suits were decreed.
