Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Manzoor Ali & Ors vs Board Of Revenue, Ajmer & Ors on 17 August, 2017
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11592 / 2012
1. Manzoor Ali S/o Late Shri Kuttubudeen, aged about 42 years,
2. Mst. Mema W/o Late Shri Kuttubudeen,
3. Manjura Bibi D/o Late Shri Kuttubudeen,
4. Shamshad Begam D/o Late Shri Kuttubudhin,
5. Gulzar Begam D/o Late Shri Kuttubudeen,
all resident of Surewala, Tehsil Tibbi, District Hanumangarh
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer
2. Revenue Appellate Authority, Hanumangarh
3. Assistant Collector, Sangariya, District Hanumangarh
4. Husna W/o Late Shri Ashak Mohammed,
5. Razak S/o Late Shri Ashak Mohammed,
6. Shamshad Ali S/o Late Shri Ashak Mohammed,
7. Yunus Ali S/o Late Shri Ashak Mohammed,
respondent Nos. 4 to 7 are resident of Arayanwali Dhani,
Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh
8. Sadhna W/o Late Shri Ashak Mohammed,
9. Noorbano W/o Liyakat Ali D/o Late Shri Ashak Mohammed,
10. Ramjan S/o Late Shri Aashak Mohammed,
11. Nizam S/o Late Shri Ashak Mohammed,
12. Farida W/o Shauquat Ali D/o Late Shri Ashak Mohammed,
Respondent Nos. 8 to 12 are resident of Surewala, Tehsil
Tibbi, District Hanumangarh
13. Rasida W/o Rashid Mohammed D/o Late Shri Ashak
Mohammed, Resident of V & PO Manaksar, Tehsil Sangariya,
District Hanumangarh
14. Abida W/o Hussain Mohammed D/o Late Shri Ashak
Mohammed, Resident of Dhani Jhabelwali Post Office
Surewala, Tehsil Tibbi, District Hanumangarh.
15. Halima W/o Late Shri Kuttubudeen, Resident of Jhandawali,
Tehsil Hanumangarh.
16. Rahmat Bibi D/o Late Shri Kuttubudhin W/o Iqbal, resident of
Jhandawali, Tehsil Hanumangarh.
(2 of 5)
[CW-11592/2012]
17. Rahmat Ali S/o Late Shri Kuttubudhin, resident of Dablibas
Molvi, Tehsil Hanumangarh.
18. Shakina Wd/o Late Shri Subhasadik, Resident of Surewala,
Tehsil Tibbi, District Hanumangarh (Name Deleted)
19. Shoukat Ali S/o Late Shri Subhasadik, Resident of Surewala,
Tehsil Tibbi, District Hanumangarh.
20. Liyakat Ali S/o Late Shri Subhasadik, Resident of Surewala,
Tehsil Tibbi, District Hanumangarh.
21. Akbar Ali S/o Late Shri Subhasadik, by caste Muslim,
resident of Rathikhera, Tehsil Tibbi, District Hanumangarh.
22. Firoj Ali S/o Munsaff Ali, by caste Muslim, resident of
Surewala, Tehsil Tibbi, District Hanumangarh.
23. Sucha Singh S/o Ajagar Singh, by caste Kamboj Sikh,
resident of Surewala, Tehsil Tibbi, District Hanumangarh.
24. Jeet Singh S/o Shri Latkan Singh Rai Sikh, Resident of
Surewala, Tehsil Tibbi, District Hanumangarh.
25. Gurdayal Singh S/o Shri Latkan Singh, Resident of Surewala,
Tehsil Tibbi, District Hanumangarh.
26. Tehsildar, Tibbi, District Hanumangarh.
27. Bhoomi Vikas Bank, Hanumangarh.
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioners : Mr. B.S. Sandhu
For Respondents : Mr. S.G. Ojha, for Resp. Nos. 4 to 14
Mr. Vijay Jain, for Resp. Nos. 15 to 17
Mr. Bhoop Singh, for Resp. No. 23
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIRMALJIT KAUR
Order 17/08/2017 The prayer in the present writ petition is for quashing of the Order dated 11.10.2012 (Annx.7) passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer with a further prayer to upheld the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority, Hanumangarh dated 03.05.2002 (3 of 5) [CW-11592/2012] (Annx.6).
The suit was filed by Ashak Mohammad. The said suit was decreed by the Assistant Collector, Sangaria, District Hanumangarh vide Order & Judgment dated 15.01.2002 declaring him as Khatedar of the land in question. Being aggrieved, the present petitioners filed an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Hanumangarh. The Revenue Appellate Authority vide Order & Judgment dated 03.05.2002 allowed the appeal filed by the petitioners and set aside the order of the Assistant Collector dated 15.01.2002 and decreed the counter-claim of the petitioners declaring them as Khatedar of 4.723 hectares land of Chak 12 CDR. Only respondent Nos. 4 to 14 approached the Board of Revenue. This time, the Board of Revenue vide Order dated 11.10.2012 set aside the order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority dated 03.05.2002 and upheld the order passed by the Assistant Collector dated 15.01.2002 vide its Order dated 11.10.2012.
The matter comes up for final disposal on the joint application (APPLW No. 3772/2017) moved by the petitioners and the respondent Nos. 4 to 14 on the basis of compromise arrived between the petitioners and the respondent Nos. 4 to 14. The original compromise arrived between the petitioners and the respondent Nos. 4 to 14 dated 19.07.2017 has been placed on record along with the said application.
Mr. S.G. Ojha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 4 to 14 also verifies the said compromise and submits that he has instructions to state before this Court that the (4 of 5) [CW-11592/2012] respondent Nos. 4 to 14 have no objection, in case, the writ petition is allowed in terms of the said compromise.
Admittedly, the appeal against the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority dated 03.05.2002 was only filed by the respondent Nos. 4 to 14. The said order was neither challenged and nor any appeal was filed against the same by the other affected parties i.e. respondent Nos. 15 to 25. In fact, the respondent Nos. 15 to 25 did not even choose to appear before the Assistant Collector in spite of service. Before this Court, however, Mr. Vijay Jain, learned counsel has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent Nos. 15 to 17 and Mr. Bhoop Singh, learned counsel has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent No. 23. It is stated by them that the said compromise has no bearing on their rights and hence, they have no objection in case, the writ petition is allowed in terms of the said compromise. The name of the respondent No. 18 stands deleted. As per the report of the Registry, the respondent Nos. 19 to 22 stand served but still no one has put in appearance on behalf of them.
In view of the above, this Court is satisfied that the compromise arrived between the petitioners and the respondent Nos. 4 to 14 is genuine and rest of the respondents are not interested. Thus, this Court has no inhibition in allowing the writ petition in terms of the compromise dated 19.07.2017.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The Order dated 11.10.2012 (Annx.7) passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer is set aside and the Order dated 03.05.2002 (Annx.6) passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority is restored and accordingly, upheld.
(5 of 5) [CW-11592/2012] The petitioners are held entitled to the khatedari rights to the extent of the land measuring 4.723 hectares of Chak 12 CDR in terms of the orders of the Revenue Appellate Authority. The parties shall be bound by the said compromise.
The writ petition stands allowed in the above terms. The application (APPLW No. 3772/2017) stands disposed of accordingly.
(NIRMALJIT KAUR), J.
Inder/34