Amitava Roy, C.J.@mdashHeard Mr. Arvind Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the applicants/appellants and Mr. J.P. Goyal, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. Manisha Surana, for the respondents. The instant appeal witnesses a challenge to the judgment and order dt. 27.11.2006 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9009/2006 dismissing the same. It is delayed by 800 days.
2. According to the applicants/respondents, though the writ petition above was dismissed on 27.11.2006, they being out of their district to earn their livelihood, were unaware thereof. The applicant No. 2 returned home in January 2009, and thereafter, he fell ill. Having recovered from his illness, he contacted his counsel in the last week of March 2009 and having learnt that the writ petition had been dismissed, he thereafter, without any further delay, preferred the appeal. The explanation furnished, to say the least, is far from convincing.
3. Noticeably, there are five applicants/appellants and the purported cause pertains only to applicant No. 2. Though a statement has been made that he had been looking after the matter, having regard to the enormity of the delay, in our opinion, the same is not an extenuating factor.
4. In the interest of justice however, we have examined, to the extent necessary, the relevant facts. The case has a chequered history. According to the applicants/appellants, one Moti Das who was the owner in possession of the land involved, had executed a Will in respect thereof in favour of one Narottam Das S/o. Kunj Bihari on 04.09.1953/04.09.1954. The legatee on the death of the testator obtained possession of the land, and thereafter, sold it to Moti Lal, the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants, on 24.01.1970 through a registered sale letter on the basis whereof, it was mutated in his name in the revenue records on 03.02.1970. While the predecessor-in-interest of the applicants/appellants was thus in possession of the land, the respondent No. 5 i.e. Temple Shri Murli Manoharji Trustee, Sanadhya Brahmin Panchayat, Baran (for short, hereafter referred to as ''Temple/Trust'') inducted one Ganpat Lal into the land for cultivating the same. To resist such a move, the predecessor-in-interest of the applicants/appellants instituted a suit under Sec. 183 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short, hereafter referred to as ''the Act''), which was however, dismissed on 31.12.1980. The appeal preferred against the same under Sec. 223 of the Act was allowed. The appeal against this decision eventually got abated due to the demise of Moti Lal on 19.07.1970 and for the failure to substitute his heirs and legal representatives. Inspite of that however, the name of the Trust/Temple continued to remain in the revenue records.
5. Confronted with this situation, the appellants/applicants instituted a suit being No. 53/1985 against the State of Rajasthan as well as Trust/Temple under Secs. 88, 89, 90, 91 & 92 of the Act. This suit was resisted by the impleaded defendants in which in their written statement, it was inter alia averred that late Moti Das, the original owner of the land, had executed a Will in the name of the Temple/Trust and the possession of the land was already with it (Temple/Trust), and that, on the demise of Moti Das, it became the owner thereof. A suit was also filed by the Temple/Trust. Eventually, the suit of the appellant was dismissed and that of the Temple/Trust was decreed and its ownership was declared. Two appeals were filed by the applicants/appellants in the Court of the Land Settlement Officer and Revenue Appellate Authority, Kota, which were registered as Appeals No. 446/2001 & 445/2001 and were eventually dismissed on 24.07.2001. The appeals filed by the applicants/appellants against the same before the Board of Revenue and registered as Appeals No. 194/2001 & 195/2001 were also dismissed on 16.07.2003, whereafter the applicants/appellants sought to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9009/2006. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Single Judge principally, on the consideration that the lower forums, on a scrutiny of the materials on record had arrived at concurrent findings, did not unsettle the same. The petition was dismissed.
6. The learned counsel for the applicants/appellants has submitted that not only sufficient cause has been shown by them to condone the delay, he has argued as well that the learned Courts below had grossly erred in evaluating the materials on record, and thus, intervention by this Bench in the appeal is called for in the interest of justice.
7. We are not inclined to lend our concurrence to this plea. Not only, as has been recorded by the learned Single Judge, the materials on record had been exhaustively marshalled by the lower forums, concurrent findings of fact had been recorded at different levels. The learned Board of Revenue as the third successive forum, on due analysis of the facts available, did record that Moti Das (since deceased), the original owner of the land involved, had executed a Will in respect thereof in favour of the Temple/Trust, and that, its name had been entered in the revenue records. Further, the applicants/appellants are not in possession of the said land. The learned Board of Revenue, on the basis of the materials available as well as by duly noticing the concurrent findings of fact of the previous adjudicating forums, declined to interfere.
8. On an overall consideration of the materials on record, we do not find any convincing and cogent reason to differ from the conclusions so recorded. As many as four forums, having recorded identically on the same set of facts, we are not inclined, in this intra Court appeal, to interfere. The application and the appeal are dismissed.
