Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Surji And Ors vs B O R Ajmer And Ors on 3 November, 2016
Author: M.N. Bhandari
Bench: M.N. Bhandari
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.15826/2013
1. Surji widow of Khetaram Jat, resident of Gumansingh Ki
Dhani.
2. Dhanpati d/o Khetaram Jat, resident of Purana Bas,
3. Sajna d/o Kheta Ram Jat wife of Sultana Ram, resident of
Purana Bas,
4. Mahendra son of Khetaram Jat, resident of Guman Singhki
Dhani,
5. Raghuveer son of Khetaram Jat, resident of Guman Singhki
Dhani (deceased)
6. Suwa d/o Khetaram, wife of Jai Singh Jat, resident of Purana
Bas,
All Tehasil Neemka Thana, District Sikar.
------Plaintiff/petitioners
Versus
1. Board of Revenue, Ajmer.
2. Revenue Appellate Authority, Ajmer.
3. S.D.O. Neemkathanka, Sikar
4. Devendra adopted son of Harphool Jat, resident of Gumansingh
Ki Dhani, Tehasil Neemka Thana, District Sikar.
5. Mohar Singh son of Heera Lal,
6. Rajpal son of Girdhani,
All resident of Indoli Tehasil Narnol, District Mahendragarh,
2
Haryana.
-------Respondents.
DATE OF ORDER : 03/11/2016
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI
Mr. M.M. Ranjan, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Ashutosh Sharma, for petitioners
None present for respondent/s By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the order dated 17th June, 2013 passed by the Board of Revenue so as order dated 15th April, 2009 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority.
The petitioners preferred a revenue suit for declaration and permanent injunction. The declaration of khatedari rights was sought based on the adoption deed as well as possession. The issue of adoption was referred to the Civil Court and has been decided against the petitioners. The khatedari rights were still pursued in reference to the possession. The original revenue court declared khatedari rigths in favour of the petitioners for half of the land of two khasras, out of four. The appeals were preferred by both the parties i.e. plaintiff and defendant. The Revenue Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioners while allowing appeal of the private respondents. The petitioners approached the Board of Revenue and therein the order of the Revenue Appellate 3 Authority was set aside as issue of the limitation in appeal preferred by the private respondents was not decided. The Revenue Appellate Authority again decided the appeal favourable to the private respondents but issue of limitation has not yet been decided. In view of above, Board of Revenue should have interfered in the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority on the appeal preferred by the private respondents but having failed to do so, present writ petition has been filed.
It is further submitted that as per Section 19 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (in short "the Act of 1955"), the petitioners were entitled for declaration of khatedari rights based on the possession in Samvat 2014 onwards and prior to it also as was mentioned in the adoption deed itself. The aforesaid was ignored by the Revenue Appellate Authority as well as Board of Revenue thus both the orders deserve to be set aside.
It is also stated that gift deed was also executed in favour of the private respondents and has been accepted ignoring all the relevant facts raised by the petitioners. For all these reasons, impugned orders deserve to be set aside.
I have considered the submission made by learned counsel for petitioners and perused the record.
In a suit preferred by the petitioners, first revenue court 4 declared khatedari rights for half of the land in two khasras, out of four. Both the parties thereupon preferred appeals before the Revenue Appellate Authority. The appeal preferred by the private respondents was delayed thus application for condonation of delay was submitted. The Revenue Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioners while accepting the appeal of the private respondents without deciding the issue of limitation. On an appeal before the Board of Revenue, matter was remanded back to the Revenue Appellate Authority to decide the issue of limitation afresh.
It is alleged that issue of limitation has not been decided by the Revenue Appellate Authority, however, I find that Board of Revenue has considered the issue aforesaid. In Para 9 of the impugned order, finding of the Revenue Appellate Authority has been referred and quoted. The delay was condoned taking it to be an appeal within time after knowledge of the order. The Board of Revenue has referred the judgment of the High Court in reference to issue aforesaid and held that delay in maintaining the appeal has rightly been condoned. It was also found that appeal preferred by the petitioners has been dismissed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, whereas, appeal preferred by the private respondents was against declaration of half of the portion in two khasras, out of four. The Board of 5 Revenue further found that issue of adoption deed has already been decided against the petitioners and declaration was mainly sought based on it thus declaration of khatedari rights in favour of the petitioners could not have been made.
The issue in reference to Section 19 of the Act of 1955 has also been considered. It is in the light of adoption deed. It was found that adoption deed was subject matter of civil suit and is otherwise not registered and stamped thus cannot be considered in evidence.
All the issues relevant to the case have been considered which include issue in reference to possession as well as gift deed executed in between. The finding of fact has been recorded after elaborate discussion of the facts. Since claim was based on a document not admissible in evidence thus Board of Revenue dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioners and I do not find any illegality therein. The discussion on all the issues has been made by the Board of Revenue which includes not only factual but legal issues. Finding no illegality therein, writ petition is dismissed without causing interference in the impugned orders.
[M.N.BHANDARI], J.
FRBOHRA