Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Chamunda Mata-Ka Mandir, And Ors vs Kulwant Singh And Ors on 15 September, 2022
Author: Vijay Bishnoi
Bench: Vijay Bishnoi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3464/2015
1. Chamunda Mata-Ka-Mandir, Perpetual Miner through next
friend Yoshovardhan Singh S/o Shri Pratap Singh, Aged
about 46 years, R/o Chak-1-V, Tehsil Srikaranpur, District
Sriganganagar (Rajasthan)
2. Ram Swaroop Singh S/o Charan Singh, By caste Jat Sikh,
R/o Chak N.1-V, Tehsil Karanpur, District Sriganganagar.
3. Sukhvindra Singh S/o Sukhdev Singh, By caste Jat Sikh,
R/o Chak N.1-V, Tehsil Karanpur, District Sriganganagar.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Shri Kulwant Singh S/o Shri Pratap Singh, Kambo Sikh, R/o
1-V, P.O. 2-V, Tehsil Karanpur, District Sriganganagar
(Rajasthan)
2. Shri Harmeet Singh S/o Shri Pratap Singh, Kambo Sikh,
R/o 1-V, P.O. 2-V, Tehsil Karanpur, District Sriganganagar
(Rajasthan)
3. Balwant Singh S/o Shri Pratap Singh, Kambo Sikh, R/o 1-V,
P.O. 2-V, Tehsil Karanpur, District Sriganganagar
(Rajasthan)
4. State of Rajasthan through Tehsildar Karanpur, District
Sriganganagar (Rajasthan)
5. Board of Revenue, Ajmer.
6. Revenue Appellate Authority, Sriganganagar (Rajasthan)
----Respondents
For Petitioners : Mr. A.K. Rajvanshy
Mr. Ankit Bhaskar
For Respondent Nos.1 to 3 : Mr. G.R. Goyal
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
Order 15/09/2022 This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners being aggrieved with the judgment dated 27.10.2014 passed by the (Downloaded on 15/09/2022 at 11:12:24 PM) (2 of 11) [CW-3464/2015] respondent No.5-Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer (hereinafter to be referred as 'the BOR'), whereby it has allowed two appeals preferred on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and set aside the judgment dated 06.03.2009 passed by the respondent No.6-Revenue Appellate Authority, Sri Ganganagar (hereinafter to be referred as 'the RAA'). The RAA had allowed two appeals preferred on behalf of the petitioners and the respondent No.4-State of Rajasthan through Tehsildar Karanpur, District Sri Ganganagar while setting aside the allotment order dated 06.12.1967 and consequential order dated 24.01.1968 passed by the District Collector, Sri Ganganagar and Sub Divisional Officer, Karanpur respectively.
Brief facts of the case are that way back in the year 1967 precisely on 06.12.1967, a land measuring about 4 Bigha 13 Biswa situated in Chak No.1-V-First, Murraba No.77, Kila No.1, 2, 3, 9 and 10 was allotted to one Pratap Singh by the District Collector, Sri Ganganagar on depositing the requisite payment. The Sub Divisional Officer, Karanpur passed the consequential order dated 24.01.1968 and pursuant to that Pratap Singh deposited the requisite amount and thereafter the allotment order was issued in his favour on 24.01.1968. Thereupon, name of Pratap Singh was entered into the revenue record and Khatedari Sanad was issued in his favour in the year 1994 by the District Collector, Sri Ganganagar. It appears that after the death of Pratap Singh, name of respondent Nos.1 to 3 were entered into the revenue record and they are recorded as Khatedars of the land in dispute.
(Downloaded on 15/09/2022 at 11:12:24 PM)
(3 of 11) [CW-3464/2015] In the year 2004, the petitioners as well as the State filed two separate appeals under Section 75 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 in the court of RAA challenging the allotment of the land in dispute to Pratap Singh by the District Collector, Sri Ganganagar. In those appeals, it was claimed by the petitioners as well as the State that the land, which was allotted to Pratap Singh, is the land of deity and the same has illegally been allotted to Pratap Singh by the District Collector, Sri Ganganagar. It was also claimed that Pratap Singh, in connivance with the revenue authorities, got allotted the land in dispute in his favour by producing forged Jamabandi and other revenue records, wherein the land of deity has wrongly been shown as government land by making interpolations and corrections in the Jamabandi.
The RAA allowed those appeals vide judgment dated 06.03.2009 and set aside the order dated 06.12.1967 passed by the District Collector, Sri Ganganagar, whereby it was decided to allot the land in dispute to Pratap Singh, and also set aside the allotment order dated 24.01.1968 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Karanpur.
Being aggrieved with the same, the respondent Nos.1 to 3 preferred two separate appeals before the BOR. Both the appeals have been allowed by BOR vide impugned judgment dated 27.10.2014 while setting aside the judgment dated 06.03.2009 passed by the RAA.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the BOR has grossly erred in allowing both the appeals filed on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 3. It is submitted that from the material placed on record by the petitioners as well as the State, it is (Downloaded on 15/09/2022 at 11:12:24 PM) (4 of 11) [CW-3464/2015] crystal clear that the land in dispute, which was allotted to Pratap Singh in the year 1967-1968, is the land of deity and it is well settled that the land of deity cannot be allotted to anybody.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that the RAA has recorded a specific finding that the land in dispute was earlier recorded in the name of deity but the allottee Pratap Singh furnished the copy of Jamabandi showing the land in dispute as government land, however, the said Jamabandi was forged because there was some interpolations and corrections in the same and the name of deity was illegally erased.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that there is no order of any of the competent authority by which the name of deity was changed in the revenue record and the said land was never recorded as government land at any point of time.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the BOR without appreciating the said factual as well as legal position has illegally allowed the appeals filed by the respondent Nos.1 to 3 while recording wrong finding that the land in dispute was recorded as government land at the time of allotment to Pratap Singh. It is also argued that Pratap Singh had obtained the allotment by placing forged documents and it is well settled that the forgery vitiates everything and, therefore, the allotment of the land in dispute, belonging to the deity, in favour of Pratap Singh is liable to be set aside.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the decision dated 15.07.2015 rendered by the Full Bench of this Court in Tara and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan and Another reported in AIR 2015 Rajasthan 179 and argued that the Full (Downloaded on 15/09/2022 at 11:12:24 PM) (5 of 11) [CW-3464/2015] Bench of this Court in the above referred judgment has clearly held that the land belonging to the deity cannot be recorded in the name of any individual and the same will remain in the name of deity.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has, therefore, prayed that the impugned judgment dated 27.10.2014 passed by the BOR may kindly be set aside and the judgment dated 06.03.2009 passed by the RAA may kindly be affirmed.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3, has vehemently opposed the prayer made on behalf of the petitioners in this writ petition and argued that there is no iota of evidence available on record to suggest that Pratap Singh has submitted forged revenue record and got the allotment of the land in dispute in his favour by committing forgery.
Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 has argued that earlier the land in dispute was allotted to Pratap Singh temporarily and as the said land is situated adjacent to his Khatedari land, he applied for the permanent allotment of the said land as small patch. It is submitted that the allotting authority, after obtaining report from the concerned Patwari as well as other revenue officials and after verifying the fact that the land in dispute is government land, allotted the same to Pratap Singh.
Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 has also argued that after deposition of whole amount as per the law, a Khatedari Sanad was also issued in favour of Pratap Singh way back in the year 1994 and in such circumstances, it cannot be concluded that there was any illegality in the allotment of land in dispute in favour of him.
(Downloaded on 15/09/2022 at 11:12:24 PM)
(6 of 11) [CW-3464/2015] Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 has also argued that before the RAA the petitioners as well as the State have failed to produce any evidence to suggest that the land in dispute was ever recorded as Muafi of petitioner No.1-Temple. It is submitted that in the absence of any such evidence, the RAA has erred in recording the finding that the land allotted to Pratap Singh was the land of the petitioner No.1-Temple.
Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 has also submitted that the petitioners have already filed a suit under Sections 88 and 183 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act for declaration and injunction in the court of Assistant Collector, Srikaranpur, District Sri Ganganagar and the said suit is pending consideration before it. It is submitted that in the said suit, the petitioners have sought a declaration to declare them as Khatedars of the land in dispute and in such circumstances until and unless, there is a declaration in their favour, the allotment made in favour of Pratap Singh cannot be cancelled.
Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 has further argued that the land in dispute was allotted to Pratap Singh way back in the year 1967-1968 and after around 37 years for the first time, the said allotment was challenged by the petitioners and the State. It is submitted that no satisfactory explanation of the said delay was given by the petitioners and the State, however, the RAA illegally condoned the said delay and also illegally set aside the allotment made in favour of Pratap Singh.
Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 has also submitted that the respondent Nos.1 to 3 are in the possession of the disputed land from last more than 55 years and at this stage if (Downloaded on 15/09/2022 at 11:12:24 PM) (7 of 11) [CW-3464/2015] the allotment made in their favour has been cancelled, it would be travesty of justice.
Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 has, therefore, prayed that this writ petition may kindly be dismissed.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record as well as the impugned judgments passed by the BOR and the RAA.
The RAA while cancelling the allotment made in favour of Pratap Singh has relied upon the copy of the Jamabandi pertaining to the Samwat years 2015 to 2018 filed by the petitioners in the revenue suit which is pending before the Assistant Collector, Sri Karanpur. It is observed by the RAA that in the said Jamabandi, the land in dispute is shown as Muafi land. It is further observed that on the other hand in the Jamabandi pertaining to the Samwat years 2015 to 2018, produced by Pratap Singh at the time of allotment, the said land is shown as government land. It is also observed by the RAA that when it applied for Jamabandi for the Samwat year 2014, then the Sadar Kanungo furnished a certified copy of the Jamabandi for the Samwat year 2014, wherein the land in dispute is shown as Muafi land. On the basis of the above facts, the RAA has concluded that the land in dispute is recorded as Muafi land, therefore, it cannot be allotted as small patch of land in favour of Pratap Singh. It is also observed by RAA that at the time of allotment of the land in dispute, Pratap Singh furnished the forged copy of the Jamabandi and Patwari concerned also did not report correct facts and illegally shown the land in dispute as government land, therefore, taking into consideration (Downloaded on 15/09/2022 at 11:12:24 PM) (8 of 11) [CW-3464/2015] the above facts, the allotment made in favour of Pratap Singh is liable to be set aside.
This Court is of the opinion that the said findings of the RAA are based on the surmises and conjectures. Simply because two types of Jamabandis pertaining to the Samwat years 2015 to 2018 for a piece of land are available, in which names of two different land holders are reflected, it cannot be concluded that one of the Jamabandi is forged one until and unless it is verified by the some competent authority on the basis of any enquiry or investigation.
Apart from that Jamabandis and the revenue record taken into consideration by the RAA are pertaining to Samwat years 2015 to 2018, whereas the allotment of the land in dispute was made in favour of Pratap Singh in the years 1967-1968 which is equivalent to the Samwat year 2025. It is not clear that in the intervening period between Samwat years 2015 to 2018 and Samwat year 2025, the land in dispute was remained in the name of Muafi or at any subsequent stage it was recorded as government land.
The District Collector, Sri Ganganagar, after taking into consideration the fact that the land has already been temporarily allotted to Pratap Singh and recorded as government land, has took a decision to allot the land in dispute to Pratap Singh as small patch on costs.
The RAA has condoned the delay of more than 37 years in filing the appeals by the petitioners and the State solely on the ground that no counter to the application has been filed on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and only in the reply to the memo of appeals, a contention is raised to dismiss the appeals on the (Downloaded on 15/09/2022 at 11:12:24 PM) (9 of 11) [CW-3464/2015] ground of delay. I am of the view that a great delay of 37 years cannot be condoned solely on the ground that the rival party has not filed any affidavit in counter to the affidavit filed by the other party. The court is required to satisfy itself whether sufficient cause has been shown or not for condoning the delay in filing the appeals.
Another aspect which is relevant in this case is that the petitioners have filed revenue suit for declaration and sought declaration of this effect that they may be declared as Khatedars of the land in dispute. In the revenue suit the respondent Nos.1 to 3 are impleaded as party and the same is still pending. Until and unless rights of the parties are crystallized by the revenue court, the RAA has committed error in cancelling the allotment made in favour of Pratap Singh.
Another relevant factor is that the allotment made in the years 1967-1968 was challenged for the first time in the year 2004 i.e. after 37 years. It is not in dispute that till all those years, earlier Pratap Singh was in the possession of the land in dispute and after his death, his legal heirs are in possession of the said land.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahisagar Bhatha Co-operative Agriculture Co-operative Society Ltd., Borsad, etc. etc. Vs. Thakore Shree Jagdevsinhji Ramsinhji and Another etc. etc. reported in AIR 1993 Supreme Court 166 while observing that the land allotted to the farmers way back in the year 1964 has protected the allotment of the farmers by observing as under :-
(Downloaded on 15/09/2022 at 11:12:24 PM)
(10 of 11) [CW-3464/2015] "7. We have given our careful consideration to the human problem arising in this case. The State Government had allotted the land in question in the year 1964 and a larger number of landless marginal farmers have improved the land for cultivation by their own labour and it would cause great harm and injustice to dispossess and dislodge these large number of families of poor farmers from the land in question."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Brij Lal Vs. Board of Revenue and Others reported in AIR 1994 Supreme Court 1128 though found that the allottee was not entitled for temporary allotment of the land has held as under :-
"5. It is not disputed before us that the appellant is in cultivating possession of the land since 1970. It would be travesty of justice to dispossess the appellant from the land which he is nourishing for over a period of two decades."
So far as the decision rendered by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Tara (supra) on which the learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance is concerned, this Court is of the opinion that there is no quarrel that the land of the deity cannot be allotted or alienate in favour of any individual, however, in the present case, it is not clear that the land allotted to Pratap Singh was deity land because the revenue authorities gave a report of this effect that the land in dispute is the government land.
Taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances of the case, I don't find any merit in this writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed.
However, it is made clear that any observations made and any findings given by this Court in this order will not affect the (Downloaded on 15/09/2022 at 11:12:24 PM) (11 of 11) [CW-3464/2015] merits of the revenue suit pending consideration in the court of Assistant Collector, Sri Karanpur, District Sri Ganganagar filed by the petitioners seeking declaration of this effect to declare them Khatedars of the land in dispute and the Assistant Collector, Sri Karanpur, District Sri Ganganagar is required to decide the said revenue suit on its own merits without being influenced by any observations made and findings given by this Court in this order.
No order as to costs.
Stay petition is disposed of.
(VIJAY BISHNOI),J Abhishek Kumar S.No.281 (Downloaded on 15/09/2022 at 11:12:24 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)