Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Union Of India vs Smt. Anju Bhargava Wife Of Late Shri ... on 1 November, 2022
Author: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14457/2020
Union Of India, Through Secretary, Government Of India,
Ministry Of Finance, South Block, New Delhi.
----Petitioner-Defendant
Versus
1. Smt. Anju Bhargava Wife Of Late Shri Akhilesh Kumar
Bhargava, Resident Of B-201, Bhragu Apartments, Plot
No.4, Sector-9, Dwarka, New Delhi.
2. Kumari Shivangi Daughter Of Late Shri Akhilesh Kumar
Bhargava, Resident Of B-201, Bhragu Apartments, Plot
No.4, Sector-9, Dwarka, New Delhi.
3. Smt. Aakanksha Daughter Of Late Shri Akhilesh Kumar
Bhargava, Resident Of B-201, Bhragu Apartments, Plot
No.4, Sector-9, Dwarka, New Delhi.
4. Ram Dutt Son Of Tikaram, Resident Of Katra Jharuwa,
Tehsil And District Agra Through Power Of Attorney Holder
Smt. Anju Bhargava Wife Of Late Shri Akhilesh Kumar
Bhargava, Resident Of B-201, Bhragu Apartments, Plot
No.4, Sector-9, Dwarka, New Delhi.
5. Smt. Rajkumari Wife Of Jawahar Lal, Resident Of
Khairthal At Present Residing At House No. 5 (Ka), 169-
170, Shiwaji Park, Alwar Through Power Of Attorney
Holder Smt. Anju Bhargava Wife Of Late Shri Akhilesh
Kumar Bhargava, Resident Of B-201, Bhragu Apartments,
Plot No.4, Sector-9, Dwarka, New Delhi.
6. Shri Dinesh Bhargava Son Of Shri Laxminarayan,
Resident Of House No. 593, Scheme No.10, Vivek Vihar,
Alwar
Respondents-Plaintiffs
7. State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar, Alwar, District Alwar (Raj.)
8. Urban Improvement Trust, Through Its Secretary, Alwar, District Alwar, Rajasthan
----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anand Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Vaibhav Bhargava HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL Order 01/11/2022 (Downloaded on 01/11/2022 at 08:42:34 PM) (2 of 5) [CW-14457/2020] On 13.10.2022, learned counsel for the petitioner sought time to seek instructions after arguing at length.
Today, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has instructions to argue the case on merit.
This writ petition has been filed assailing the legality and validity of the judgment and decree dated 20.08.2020 passed by the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer (for brevity "the BoR") in Appeal No.2720/2020 whereby, the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the judgment and decree dated 18.02.2020 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Alwar (hereinafter referred to as "the RAA") in Appeal No.18/2019 preferred against the judgment and decree dated 03.06.2019 passed by the Court of Sub-Divisional Officer, Alwar (for short "the learned trial Court") in Case No.185/2014 decreeing the revenue suit filed by the respondents under Sections 88, 183 & 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for brevity "the Act of 1955"), has been dismissed.
The relevant facts in brief are that the respondents No.1 to 6/plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiffs") filed a revenue suit under Sections 88, 183 & 188 of the Act of 1955 against the petitioner/defendant No.1 and the respondents No.7 & 8/defendants No.2 & 3 stating therein that they are Khatedars of Khasra No.1728 measuring 73 aer, village Alwar No.1, Tehsil & District Alwar. It was averred that they were in possession of 37 aer of land only and rest 36 aer of land towards western side, was used by the UIT, Alwar for construction of roads without acquisition and on their objection, they were allotted 40 per cent developed land by the UIT, Alwar in Vijaynagar Scheme in lieu of 36 aer of land. It was alleged that 37 aer land of Khasra No.1728 (Downloaded on 01/11/2022 at 08:42:34 PM) (3 of 5) [CW-14457/2020] was encroached upon by the petitioner/defendant No.1 (for short "the defendant No.1") in the year 2003. Therefore, a decree of declaration, permanent injunction and dispossession was prayed for.
The defendant No.1 in its written statement submitted that it is in possession of the land of Khasra No.1706 which the plaintiffs were erroneously claiming to be part of land of Khasra No.1728. It was admitted in the reply that it has no concern with the 37 aer land of Khasra No.1728.
The suit was partly decreed by the learned trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 27.01.2017 which came to be assailed by the plaintiffs as also by the defendant No.1 by way of separate appeals which were partly allowed by the RAA in Appeal No.2/2014 vide judgment dated 02.12.2014 whereby, while setting aside the judgment and decree dated 27.01.2014, the matter was remanded back to the learned trial Court to decide it afresh. After remand, the learned trial Court, vide its judgment dated 03.06.2019, decreed the suit and declared the plaintiffs as Khatedars of the land of Khasra No.1728, the defendant No.1 was injuncted not to interfere with use and occupation of the subject land by the plaintiffs and the defendant No.2, the Tehsildar, Alwar was directed to restore possession of 37 aer land of Khasra No.1728 to the plaintiffs and to carry out necessary corrections in the revenue record. The judgment and decree dated 03.06.2019 were unsuccessfully challenged by the defendant No.1 by way of an Appeal No.18/2019 which came be to be dismissed by the RAA vide its judgment dated 18.02.2020 which has been affirmed by the BoR vide its judgment and decree dated 20.08.2020. (Downloaded on 01/11/2022 at 08:42:34 PM)
(4 of 5) [CW-14457/2020] Assailing the judgment and decree dated 20.08.2020, placing reliance upon Section 111 of the Act of 1955, the only contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since, it is in possession of the land of Khasra No.1706, the revenue authorities may be directed to demarcate the land of Khasra No.1706 also along with demarcation of land of Khasra No.1728. He, therefore, prays that the judgment and decree may be modified accordingly.
Per contra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent No.6/caveator would submit that the scope of this writ petition, being directed against the judgment and decree passed by the revenue Courts, is confined to examine and adjudge their validity only and no such direction, which is in the nature of a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can be passed by this Court. He submits that in view of admitted position that the plaintiffs are Khatedars of the land of Khasra No.1728 with which the petitioner has no concern, no interference by this Court is warranted in the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the three revenue Courts. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the writ petition.
Heard. Considered.
There is no challenge to the concurrent findings recorded by the revenue Courts that the respondents No.1 to 6/plaintiffs are Khatedars of land of Khasra No.1728 measuring 37 aer as on date and are entitled for restoration of its possession after demarcation by the revenue authorities. In view thereof, no interference is warranted by this Court in the concurrent finding of facts recorded by the revenue Courts, which otherwise also are not under challenge before this Court.
(Downloaded on 01/11/2022 at 08:42:34 PM)
(5 of 5) [CW-14457/2020] Insofar as, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the revenue authorities may be directed to demarcate the land of Khasra No.1706 also along with demarcation of land of Khasra No.1728, this Court finds substantial force in the submission of learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No.6/caveator that since this writ petition arises out of judgment and decree passed by the revenue Courts, no such direction can be issued by this Court under its limited jurisdiction. Even otherwise also, in absence of any such counter claim by the petitioner, no such relief can be granted. However, the petitioner is always at liberty to invoke the jurisdiction of the revenue authorities under the Act of 1955 if it wants demarcation of land under its possession.
Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit.
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J Manish/49 (Downloaded on 01/11/2022 at 08:42:34 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)