Judgment:
Sangeet Lodha, J.
1. In this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the judgments and decrees dt. 02.06.1987, 18.07.1996 and 25.09.2001 passed by the Assistant Collector, Banswara, Revenue Appellate Authority, Banswara and Board of Revenue, Rajasthan respectively.
2. The brief facts are that original plaintiff Taher Ali filed a suit for permanent injunction under Section 92 A read with Section 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (in short 'the Act of 1955' hereinafter) against the original defendant Dalichand alleging inter alia that the plaintiff is a recorded khatedar tenant of 2 bighas 9 biswas land comprising Arazi No. 1940, situated in Banswara and he is in actual physical possession of the aforesaid land. It was alleged that on or about 19.04.1983, the defendant Dalichand attempted to tress pass over the portion measuring 30' x 45 ' on the northern side of the said land for raising construction. On the application being preferred by the plaintiff before the Tehsildar, Banswara for stopping the encroachment over the land in possession of the petitioner, the site was inspected by the Patwari. At the time of inspection, the defendant was found raising construction. Inspite of the directions issued by the Patwari and the Tehsildar concerned, the defendant did not stop the construction and asserted that he will raise construction. The defendant claimed that the plot in question was purchased by him from the municipality and therefore, he has every right to proceed with the construction. Under these circumstances, the original plaintiff Taher Ali filed a suit for injunction against the defendant Dalichand in respect of the aforesaid land .
3. The suit was contested by the defendant Dalichand that he had purchased the plot No. 143 measuring 30'x 45' from the municipality under a patta dt. 21.01.1949 and he is in possession of the said plot since then. It was submitted that the construction was being raised after obtaining due permission from the Municipal Board, Banswara. It was contended that the plot in question is not an agriculture land and the suit is triable by the revenue Court and deserves to be dismissed for this reason alone.
4. After the trial, the suit was dismissed by the Assistant Collector, Banswara vide judgment and decree dt. 02.06.1987. The learned trial Court accepted the defendant's claim that he had purchased the plot in question from the Municipal Board vide patta No. 561 dt. 21.01.1949 and the plaintiff cannot be deemed to be in possession and he is not entitled for the decree for injunction.
5. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dt. 02.06.1987 plaintiff Taher Ali preferred an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Banswara. The appeal was dismissed by the Revenue Appellate Authority vide judgment and decree dt. 18.07.1996 holding that the land in question is Abadi land and merely because the land has not been entered in the revenue record as Abadi, the defendant cannot be made to suffer. The Revenue Appellate Authority held that on the basis of the documents on record, the plaintiff cannot be said to be in possession of the land in question. That apart, the Revenue Appellate Authority opined that since the plot in question is Abadi land therefore, the Revenue Court has no jurisdiction to issue a permanent injunction in the matter.
6. On further appeal, the Board of Revenue has affirmed the findings arrived at by both the Courts below and accordingly, the Second Appeal preferred by the legal representatives of plaintiff Taher Ali , the petitioner herein, inter alia against the legal representatives of the defendant Dalichand, respondents No. 5 to 12 herein has been dismissed vide impugned judgment and decree dt. 25.09.2001. Hence, this writ petition.
7. It is contended by the learned Counsel on behalf of the petitioners that the learned Courts below have committed an error apparent on the face of record in holding that the suit land is not an agriculture land inspite of the fact that Arazi No. 1940 of which the disputed land is a part continuous to be recorded as an agriculture land in the revenue record. It is submitted by the learned Counsel that it was manifestly clear from the record that the land in question is being used as an agriculture land and never been converted into an Abadi land in accordance with law. The learned Counsel submitted that the learned Courts below have committed a gross and palpable error in holding that the plaintiff was not in possession of the land in question. The learned Counsel further submitted that the patta on the basis of which the defendant claims his right title and interest purported to have been issued in 1965 whereas the plot is alleged to have been allotted in favour of the petitioner in 1949. The learned Counsel submitted that the plaintiff Taher Ali had purchased the land in question from Shri Gulab Singh S/o Bhawani Singh Rajput who had purchased the land from his predecessor in title Dhulia S/o Kachru Teli and this fact is apparent from Khasra Girdawari of the Samvat years 2012 to 2015 placed on record as Annexure 1. Accordingly, it is submitted by the learned Counsel that the findings arrived at by the Courts below are ex facie perverse.
8. On the other hand, Mr. J.L.Purohit, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 6 submitted that the land was declared as Abadi land long back by the Prime Minister of Banswara in the year 1940 and the same was allotted by the Municipal Board, Banswara in favour of defendant Dalichand in the year 1948. It is submitted that the land having been declared as Abadi land , the same ceased to be an agriculture land. It is submitted that merely on account of a wrong entry made in the revenue record regarding the land as agriculture land did not confer any right upon the plaintiff Dalichand. The learned Counsel submitted that on the basis of the material on record, all the Courts below have concurrently found that the land in question is Abadi land therefore, there is absolutely no reason as to why the concurrent finding of fact arrived at by the Courts below should be interfered with by this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The learned Counsel submitted that the petitioners have concealed a material fact that a suit was filed by Tehsildar, Banswara under Sections 175-177 of the Act of 1955 in respect of the land of Khasra No. 1940 alleging that the said land is agriculture land and therefore, the same could not have been allotted to the defendants therein by the Municipal Board, Banswara and the construction raised by the allottees on the land is illegal. The suit filed was dismissed by the Assistant Collector, Banswara vide judgment dt. 11.02.1988 holding that the land in Khasra No. 1940 was converted into Abadi land but the entry of the same was not made in the Revenue Record. The learned Counsel submitted that Shri Taher Ali so also the Municipal Board, Banswara were party defendant in the suit filed and the judgment dt. 11.02.1988 dismissing the suit having attained finality, the same is binding upon Taher Ali and his successors. Accordingly, it is submitted that since the petitioners have concealed the material fact therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on this count alone.
9. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record.
10. A perusal of the orders impugned goes to show that the Courts below on the basis of material on record have concurrently found that the land in question comprising Khasra No. 1940 was converted into Abadi land and after the allotments of the plots, pattas were issued by the municipality in favour of the respective allottees. There is no evidence on record to show that the land was existing in the name of petitioners' predecessor in title in the Revenue Record at any time between the period from years 1940 to 1948. It has come on record that plot No. 143 measuring 30' x 40' was allotted to Shri Dalichand by the Municipal Board, Banswara vide order No. 2519 dt. 21.04.1949 and patta of the land was issued in his favour in the year 1965. In considered opinion of this Court, on the basis the material on record, the learned Courts below have rightly arrived at the finding that land having declared as Abadi land by the Prime Minister of Banswara, the same ceased to be an agriculture land and merely on account of a wrong entry in the Revenue Record showing the land to be an agriculture land, the petitioners cannot claim any undue benefit. Moreover, while dismissing the suit filed by the Tehsildar, Banswara seeking ejectment of the allottees from the land comprising khasra No. 1940 wherein the petitioners' father Taher Ali was party defendant, vide order dt. 11.02.1988, it has been categorically held by the competent Court that the land in question is Abadi land and accordingly, the directions were issued to the Municipal Board to produce the documents before the Tehsildar, Banswara to get the entries in the Revenue Record corrected. Admittedly, the said order has attained finality and binding upon inter alia the petitioners. If the petitioners were aggrieved by the said order then, they could have availed the remedy available to them under the law.
11. Having gone through the material on record, in considered opinion of this Court, the concurrent finding arrived at by the Courts below is based on due consideration of the material on record and cannot be said to be perverse in any manner whatsoever so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
12. As laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Sadhna Lodh v. National Insurance Company Limited and Anr. : (2003) 3 SCC 524, the supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is confined only to see whether inferior Court or tribunal has proceeded within its parameters and not to correct an error apparent on the face of record much less of an error of law. In exercising the supervisory jurisdiction, the High Court does not act as an appellate Court and it is not permissible to a High Court to review or reweigh the evidence upon which the inferior Court or tribunals purports to have passed the order or to correct error of law in the decision.
13. In view of the discussion above, there is no merit in the writ petition. The same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.