Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Suraj Mal vs Bor Ajmer And Ors on 9 April, 2018
Author: K.S.Jhaveri
Bench: K.S.Jhaveri
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 384/2001
Suraj Mal @ Rajpal Son of Shri Narain Singh by caste Jat,
Resident of Jat Ki Sarai, Hindaun City, Tehsil Hindauncity, District
Karauli (Rajasthan) (Now deceased) through:-
1/1. Gopal singh Beniwal;
½. Mohan Singh Beniwal,
All sons of Late Shri Suraj Mal @ Rajpal, Residents of Jat Ki
Sarai, Hindaun City, Tehsil Hindauncity, District Karauli
(Rajasthan)
1/3. Bachchu Singh Beniwal (Now deceased)
1/3/1. Balwal Singh
1/3/2. Dharmendra Singh
All sons of Late Shri Bachchu Singh Beniwal, residents of Village
Jat Ki Sarai Hindaun City District Karauli (Rajasthan).
1/3/3. Suman Kumari wife of Shri Charan Singh, Resident of
Chyare Ki Bageechi, Behind G.S. College, Near Hanuman Mandir,
Mathura (U.P.)
1/3/4. Poonam Kumar wife of Shri Raj Choudhary, Resident of
Naga Ki Bageechi, Chhawani, Hindaun City, District Karauli (Raj.)
All daughters of Late Shri Bachchu Singh Beniwal.
¼. Smt. Babuta wife of Shri Vijendra Singh, Resident of Village
Nagaia Bhagi P.O. Kanwar, Tehsil Bayana District Bharatpur
(Rajasthan).
1/5. Smt. Sushila W/o Shri Nathi Singh, Resident of Village
Targaon, P.O. Vallabhgarh, Tehsil Vair, District Bharatpur
(Rajasthan.)
1/6. Smt. Dhakoli W/o Shri Mool Chand,
1/7. Smt. Mukti W/o Shri Birbal Singh
both resident of Salempur tehsil Vair, District Bharatpur
(Rajasthan).
1/8. Smt. Laxmi W/o Shri Ram Lal, Resident of Village Alwar
Tehsil Kumher District Bharatpur (Rajasthan).
----Appellants-petitioners.
Versus
1. The Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer (Rajasthan).
2. The Revenue Appellate Authority, Kota (Rajasthan).
3. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Hindaun, District Karauli
(Rajasthan).
4. Banni @ Bana Singh Son of Shri Narain Singh by caste Jat,
Resident of Jat Ki Sarai, Tehsil Hindaun City, District Karauli
(Rajasthan) (Now Deceased) through:-
4/1. Babu @ Ram Dayal Son of Late Shri Banni, Resident of Jat
Ki Sarai, Hindaun City, District Karauli (Rajasthan). (Now
deceased) through:-
(2 of 7) [SAW-384/2001]
4/1/1. Smt. Sumitra Devi Wife of Late Shri Babu,
4/1/2. Shri Rajveer Singh Son of Late Shri Babu,
4/1/3. Shri Ramveer Singh Son of Late Shri Babu,
4/1/4. Shri Chandrabhan @ Bablu Son of Late Shri Babu,
All residents of Village Jat Ki Sarai Hindaun City District Karauli
(Rajasthan).
4/2. Hajari Singh Son of Late Shri Banni, Resident of Jat Ki
Sarai, Hindaun City, District Karauli (Rajasthan) (Now Deceased)
through:-
4/2/1. Smt. Sugarbati Wife of Late Shri Hajari Singh,
4/2/2. Shri Rajkumar Son of Late Shri Hajari Singh,
4/2/3. Shri Kushal Singh Son of Late Shri Hajari Singh,
4/2/4. Rajkumari Daughter of Late Shri Hajari Singh,
All residents of Village Jat Ki Sarai Hindaun City District Karauli
(Rajasthan).
4/3. Shanti Widow of Late Suraj Mal, Resident of Ballabhgarh,
Tehsil Bhusawar District Bharatpur (Rajasthan), Daughter of Late
Shri Banni.
4/4. Dulari W/o Shri Sahib Singh and Daughter of Late Shri
Banni, Resident of Village Verkheda Post Vijaypura, Tehsil,
Hindaun District Karauli (Rajasthan).
5. Bhawani Ram Son of Shri Narain (Deceased) through legal
representatives:-
5/1. Smt. Lohar Kanwar Widow of Bhawani Ram (Deleted).
5/2. Pooran Son of Shri Bhawani Ram,
5/3. Amar Singh Son of Shri Bhawani Ram,
5/4. Khami Son of Shri Bhawani Ram,
All resident of Jat Ki Sarai, Jindaun City, District Karauli
(Rajasthan).
5/5. Uganti D/o Late Shri Bhanwar Ram Wife of Shri Lal Chand
Jat, Resident of Jat Ki Salempur, Tehsil Vair District Bharatpur
(Rajasthan).
6. Kishan Son of Narayan, Resident of Jat Ki Sarai, Hindaun City,
District Karauli (Rajasthan).
7. Gulkandi Wife of Harnand, by caste Jat, Resident of Jat Ka
Salempur, Tehsil Veri District Bharatpur (Rajasthan) Now
Deceased through:-
7/1. Sampat Singh,
7/2. Ajeet Singh,
7/3. Man Singh,
All Sons of Gulkandi,
7/4. Ramesh,
7/5. Mahesh,
Both Sons of Deceased Son of Shri Ram Swaroop,
All Resident of Village Salempur Kalan, Tehsil Vair district
Bharatpur (Rajasthan).
7/6. Smt. Premvati W/o Shri Mewa Ram, Resident of Village
(3 of 7) [SAW-384/2001]
Tichbaoi, Post Halena, Tehsil Vair District Bharatpur (Rajasthan).
7/7. Smt. Basanti W/o Shri Pratap Singh, Resident of Village
Gangroli P.O. Ishwala Tehsil Vair District Bharatpur (Rajasthan)
(Now Deceased) through:-
7/7/1. Bachu Singh Son of Shri Pratap Singh,
7/7/2. Maharaj Singh Son of Pratap Singh,
Both Resident of Village Gangroli, Post Office Ishwala, Tehsil
Vair District Bharatpur (Rajasthan).
7/7/3. Vimla W/o Shiv Ram, Resident of Village and Post Bhesina
Tehsil Vair, district Bharatpur (Rajasthan).
8. Gulbatti W/o Bhagwan Singh Resident of Village Pathena,
Tehsil Vair district Bharatpur (Rajasthan) (Now Deceased)
through:-
8/1. Prem Singh,
8/2. Mohan Singh,
8/3. Lokendra Singh,
8/4. Rajendra Singh,
All sons of Shri Bhagwan Singh, Resident of Village Paithena Post
Paithena, Tehsil Vair District Bharatpur (Rajasthan).
8/5 Omvati Wife of Gulab Singh D/o Bhagwan Singh, Resident of
Village Khlua, Tehsil Aagra District Agra (U.P.)
8/6. Roopwati Wife of Ramhet Singh, D/o Bhagwan Singh,
Resident of Ajeeta Ka Nagal, Post Karara Tehsil Kirawali District
Agra (U.P.)
9. Mst. Bhonri Wife of Paras Ram Singh, Resident of Pathena
Tehsil Vair District Bharatpur (Rajasthan).
10. Samo Kaur Widow of Chothi.
11. Devi Singh Son of Choti,
12. Gopi Son of Choti,
13. Gordhan Son of Shri Choti,
14. Ram Sahar Son of Choti
All by caste Jat, Resident of Jat Ki Sarai, Hindaun City, District
Bharatpur (Rajasthan).
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. R.K. Mathur, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Sandeep Maheshwari For Respondent(s) : Mr. B.P. Pareek, Mr. Raghvendra Singh HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S.JHAVERI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR VYAS Judgment 09/04/2018 (4 of 7) [SAW-384/2001]
1. By way of this appeal, the appellant has assailed the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge whereby learned Single Judge vide order dt. 4.6.2001 has confirmed the order of Board of Revenue which has reversed the finding arrived at by SDO and confirmed by the RAA.
2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a suit for declaration of khatedari rights against his father Sh. Narain and brother Sh. Banni @ Banne Singh in the court of Sub Divisional Officer, Hindaun, District Sawai Madhopur on the ground that in Samvat 2010 Sh. Narain partitioned all his agricultural land in favour of his five sons in equal shares and handed over the possession of the same separately to all his five sons for cultivation as sub tenants and since then all the five brothers have been cultivating the said land separately. Thus, the petitioner was in cultivatory possession as sub tenant of land wich came in his share i.e. whole of land pertaining no.s 489, 22, 757, 748 and western half of the land pertaining to khasra no.888 and therefore, he became entitled to be recorded as khatedari tenant under the provisions of Rajasthan Tenancy Act. That, respondent no.4 Banni Singh @ Banne Singh: one of the sons of Sh. Narain got a gift deed registered in his favour from late Sh. Narain Singh on 25.8.1996 in respect of the land pertaining to khasra no.22 (whole) and 888 (half) which was in share and possession of the petitioner. The Sub Divisional Officer decreed the suit in favour of the petitioner vide its judgment and decree dt. 12.5.1978.
3. Counsel for the appellant Mr. Mathur has taken us to the issues framed by the first authority which reads as under:-
(5 of 7) [SAW-384/2001] 1- vk;k vkjkth eqrftdk en ua01 okn i= ukjk;.k yky dh ekS:lh Hkwfe Fkh vkSj bl ij ukjk;.k yky cgsfl;r [kkrsnkj dk'rdkj dkfct FkkA oknh 2- vk;k okgeks Qjhdsu esa vkjkth eqrfnfo;k dk rdkLek la0 2010 esa lgLo rudhg en ua03 okn i= gks x;k FkkA oknhA 3- vk;k vkjkft;kr eqrnkfo;k en ua04 dks oknh la02010 ls cjkcj f'kdeks dk'rdkj dk gSfl;r ls dk'r djrk pyk vk jgk gS vkSj mls vkj Vh ,DV ds rgr [kkrsnkjh vf/kdkj izkIr gks x;sA oknh 4- vk;k ukjk;.k yky eqrcQks esa vkjkth eqrftdk en ua04 dks fnukad 25-8-66 dks ,d o['kh'kukek ogd izfroknh ua02 mlds cgdkus ij djk fy;k vkSj mldk nkos ij D;k izHkko gS oknh 5- nknjlh D;k gksxh
4. He further contended that after considering the evidence on record and while considering the issue no.4, the first authority recorded the finding as under:-
VªkalQj vkWQ izkiVhZ ,DV dh /kkjk 92 ds vUrxZr dksbZ Hkh nkui= rc gh ls iw.kZ ekuk tkosxk tc fd nku dh tkus okyh tk;nkn dk dCtk nkui= }kjk nku x`fgrk dks gLrkUrfjr dj fn;k tkosA ge mij lkQ dj pqds gS fd [k0 ua0 22 iwjs Hkkx ij ,oa [kljkuk ua0 888 ds 1@2 Hkkx ij oknh lwjtey dk la02010 ls vkt rx yxkrkj dCtk pyk vk jgk gSA rks fQj bu uEcjksa dk nku nkrk }kjk nku x`fgrk ds fgr esa bZ0,Dl A ds vUnj dCtk ns nsus dh ckr xyr fy[kh xbZ gSA pwafd nkok gktk dh tqeyk rudhgky ogd oknh o f[kykQ izfroknh dk fcy fMØh djkj ikrk gSA
5. The same has been confirmed by RAA.
6. He contended that Board of Revenue has committed serious error in disturbing the finding arrived at by both the authorities in violation of Section 224 read with Section 222 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955.
7. He contended that learned Single Judge has also committed (6 of 7) [SAW-384/2001] serious error in confirming the order of Board of Revenue and reversing the order of SDO as well as RAA.
8. It is also contended that the question in this case is whether the finding recorded on gift deed which created right in favour of the party can be disturbed by the Revenue court.
9. Counsel for the respondent has pointed out that Board of Revenue while considering the matter observed as under:-
5- bl izdj.k esa nksuksa i{kksa us xokgksa ds c;ku djk;s gS rFkk nLrkost is'k fd;s gSA v/khuLFk nksuksa U;k;ky;ksa us izn'kZ&17 o izn'kZ 27 ij fopkj djrs gq, ;g fu"d"kZ fydkyk gS fd ;g Hkwfe iSr`d gSA izn'kZ 17 ukjk;.k dk c;ku gS tks mlus fdlh nwljs U;k;ky; esa fn;k Fkk ,oa izn'kZ 27 ,d pdcUnh dh jktLo vfHkys[k dh izfrfyfi gSA izn'kZ 27 ls ;g Li"V ugha gksrk gS fd ;g leLr Hkwfe iSr`d FkhA blesa ukjk;.k ds firk dk uke ntZ gS ijUrq dsoy ek= bl nLrkost ls ;g ugha dgk tk ldrk gS fd ;g Hkwfe ukjk;.k ds firk dh Fkh blds fy;s fdlh tekcUnh ds bUnzkt is'k gksuk t:jh Fks vkSj ,slkh dksbZ tekcUnh is'k ugha dh xbZ ftlesa ;g Hkwfe ukjk;.k ds firk dh crkbZ xbZ gksA oSls Hkh ukjk;.k ds ikl ;g Hkwfe iSr`d tc ekuh tk;sxh fd ;g Hkwfe ukjk/lk ds nknk dh Fkh vkSj ukjk;.k ds firk ds i'pkr mlds ikl vkbZA blds vfrfjDr izn'kZ 17 ukjk;.k ds c;ku dh udy gS D;ksa fd ukjk;.k dh e`R;q kSjku nkok gks xbZ Fkh blfy;s ;g nLrkost is'k fd;k x;k Fkk bl nLrkost dks i<us ls yxrk gS fd mlus dHkh Hkh fdlh Hkh LFkku ij ;g ugha dgk fd ;g Hkwfe iSr`d FkhA cfYd mlus ;g dgk gS fd ;g tehu esjh gS pkgs fdlh dks Hkh nwa vkSj eSa bls cUuh dks ns pqdk gwaA vU; fdlh xokg us Li"V :i ls izekf.kr ugha fd;k fd ;g Hkwfe ukjk;.k ds firk dh Fkh cUuh dk c;ku gqvk ftldk ;g dFku gS fd mls ;kn ugha fd dksbZ tehu dk cVokjk gqvk Fkk ijUrq mlds lkeus dksbZ cVokjk ugha gqvk gS mlds vuqlkj ;g tehu mldks mlds firk us nh Fkh bl ckr ls bUdkj fd;k gS fd lEor 2010 esa blds ikap fgLls vyx vyx dj fn;s x;s ijUrq bls ckr dks Lohdkj fd;k gS fd 35 o"kZ ls ikap HkkbZ bls vyx vyx dk'r djrs Fks vkSj bldk yxku firkth dks nsrs Fks ft;kyky us jftLVªh izekf.kr dh gSA fl) us bl tehu ij cUUkh dh dk'r crkbZ gSA /kuhjke us Hkh bl ckjs esa dqN ugha dgk FkkA oLrqr% bl ckr dh dksbZ 'kgknr ugha gS fd ; tehu iSr`d FkhA ,slh fLFkfr esa ukjk;.k dks ;g vf/kdkj Fkk fd ;g Hkwfe fdlh dks Hkh ns nsA tgka rd lEor 2010 esa cVokjs dk iz'u gS ;fn dksbZ ikfjokfjd le>kSrk dj Hkh fy;k x;k gS ftlds vuqlkj yMdksa dks Hkwfe ij vyx vyx dCtk Hks ns fn;k x;k gS rks (7 of 7) [SAW-384/2001] mldks caVokjs dh laKk ugha nh tk ldrhA caVokjk dk;ns ls fd;k tkuk pkfg;s FkkA ;fn yMdksa gS rks mldh jftLVªh gksuk vko';d Fkh vkSj jkT; ljdkj dks mlesa i{kdkj gksuk vko';d gSA bl izdkj dk dksbZ caVokjk fjdkMZ ij ugha gSA blfy;s ;fn dksbZ Hkh Qsfeyh vjUtSesUV fd;k x;k Fkk rks og ukjk;.k ds iq=ksa esa dksbZ vf/kdkj mRiUu ugha djrk gSA 7- tgka rd nku i= dk iz'u gS blds ckjs esa dksbZ Hkh i{k fookn ugha djrk gS fd ;g nku i= ukjk;.k us fd;k vkSj jftLVMZ djk;kA bl nku i= dks ;fn voS/k ?kksf"kr djkuk gS rks mlds fy;s fnokuh U;k;ky; esa nkok djuk iMsxkA jktLo U;k;ky; esa bl lEU/k esa dksbZ vkns'k ugha fn;k tk ldrk gSA bl nku i= dks iw.kZrk voS/k vFkkZr okbZn¼ok;M½ ugha ekuk tk ldrk gS blfy;s blds lEcU/k esa fnokuh U;k;ky; esa gh pkjktksbZ dh tk ldrh gSA
10. He contended that the learned Single Judge has rightly confirmed the order of Board of Revenue.
11. We have heard both the parties.
12. In our considered opinion, the issue of partial gift deed introduced by revenue court has in fact being a novel idea which has been supported by the counsel for the appellant. In our considered opinion, revenue court has no jurisdiction to disturb the gift deed. In that view of the matter, we are in complete agreement with the view taken by the Board of Revenue and learned Single Judge. No case is made out for interference.
13. The appeal stands dismissed.
(VIJAY KUMAR VYAS),J (K.S.JHAVERI),J Brijesh 135.