Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Khet Singh & Ors vs B.O.R. & Ors on 24 April, 2017
Author: Gopal Krishan Vyas
Bench: Gopal Krishan Vyas, G.R. Moolchandani
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 103 / 2017
1. Khet Singh S/o Sh. Madhu Singh
2. Ganga Singh S/o Sh. Khet Singh, Both by Caste Rajput, R/o
Village Madwala, Tehsil and District Jalore.
3. Motiya (mota Ram), S/o Shri Biram, By Caste Chowdhary, R/o
Village Madwala, Tehsil and District Jalore.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer
2. The Additional Collector, Jalore
3. The Tehsildar, Jalore
4. The State of Rajasthan, Through the Tehsildar, Jalore
5. Doly @ Mandir Shri Vishnu Bhagwan Through Pujari, Bansiya,
S/o Late Sh. Uda Saadh,, R/o Avloj, Tehsil and District Jalore.
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sudhir Sharma
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.R. MOOLCHANDANI Judgment Per Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gopal Krishan Vyas 24/04/2017 The instant special appeal has been filed by the appellants under Rule 134 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules read with Article 225 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 16.8.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in SBCWP No.1863/1997 whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed (2 of 5) [SAW-103/2017] by the petitioners-appellants on the ground that without there being any revenue record showing that Uda was the Khatedar tenant of the land, on the strength of the sale deed executed by him in favour of the petitioners no.1 and 2,the mutation was effected by the revenue authority in their names and on the basis of subsequent transfer of the name of the petitioner no.3 the mutation was made. The learned Single Judge observed in the order that the mutation proceedings are merely fiscal proceeding and do not determine the right of the parties and does not confer title and therefore, merely on the basis of mutation effected, Uda and subsequent transferee cannot claim Khatedari rights over the land in question. The learned Single Judge also considered the question of delay raised by the petitioners for making reference under Section 82 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1956 for short), but rejected the same.
As per brief facts of the case, the appellants preferred SBCWP No.1863/1997 before this court against the order dated 28.2.1997 (Annex.4) and prayed to quash the same and further made a prayer that respondents may kindly be restrained from dispossessing them from the land in question. The State of Rajasthan preferred a petition under Section 9 of the Act of 1956 before the Board of Revenue, Ajmer with the averments that in village Avloj, Tehsil Jalore there exists land ad measuring 7 bighas and 6 biswas in Khasra No.258 which was initially recorded in the name of deity of Shri Vishnu Bhagwan through Pujari Uda S/o Chatra Saadh resident of Avloj. In the settlement record the said (3 of 5) [SAW-103/2017] Pujari Uda sold the land through sale deed dated 10.10.1963 to Khet Singh and Ganga Singh and subsequently the purchasers sold the land to Motiya on 4.10.1964. At the strength of the said sale deed, mutation no.52 and 60 was effected. Upon aforesaid circumstances, a reference application was presented before the Addl. District Collector, Jalore which was registered as Case No.19/89 but the reference petition filed by the State of Rajasthan was rejected by the Addl. District Collector, Jalore vide order dated 27.7.1991, therefore,the State of Rajasthan filed petition under Section 9 of the Act of 1956 against the order dated 24.7.1991 passed by the Addl. District Collector, Jalore.
The learned Revenue Board allowed the said application filed under Section 9 of the Act of 1956. The learned member of the Board of Revenue while exercising powers under Section 9 of the Act of 1956 set aside the mutation no.52 and 60 and further ordered that land in question be recorded in the name of deity Shri Vishnu Bhagwan.
Before learned Single Judge it is submitted by the petitioners-appellants that learned Addl. Collector rejected the application filed by the Teshildar, Jalore after recording categorical finding regarding interpolation in the record. Instead of challenging the order passed by the Addl. Collector, the State could not have invoke the jurisdiction of the Board of Revenue under Section 9 of the Act of 1956. It is also submitted that the revenue record pertaining to Samwat Year 2003-04 was not placed before the Board of Revenue which has resulted in erroneous finding, therefore, on the strength of Khasra Bandobast (4 of 5) [SAW-103/2017] of the year 2003-04 the land in question was recorded as Khud Kast land of Uda, therefore, it cannot be said that no revenue record showing that Uda was Khatedar tenant of the land and was not having any title over the land in question so as to execute the sale deed in favour of the petitioners nos.1 and 2.
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that finding of the learned Single Judge is totally illegal because in the revenue record pertaining to the Samwat Year 2003-04 it is evident that finding of the learned Board of Revenue as well as the learned Single Judge is illegal and contrary to the record.
After hearing learned counsel for the appellants we have perused the entire record of the case and the order passed by the Board of Revenue. It is not in dispute that Uda was Pujari of the land in question, which was recorded in the name of Shri Vishnu Bhagwan. No documentary evidence as pointed out in the writ petition was even submitted before the learned Board of Revenue nor any ground was raised before the learned Board of Revenue and petitioners-appellants does not dispute the fact that since 2005-2029 there was entry in the revenue record in the name of idol Shri Vishnu Bhagwan. Further, in Khasra Bandobast of the year 2008-2028 the entry stand in the name of idol.
In view of the above facts, we are of the opinion that no error has been committed by the Board of Revenue while exercising powers under Section 9 of the Act of 1956 so as to quash the mutation entry no.52 and 60 and to direct that the land in question may be recorded in the name of deity Shri Vishnu Bhagwan as it was.
(5 of 5) [SAW-103/2017] The learned Single Judge has considered all grounds of the matter and dismissed the writ petition, therefore, there is no force in this special appeal.
Hence, this special appeal is hereby dismissed. (G.R. MOOLCHANDANI)J. (GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS)J. Cpgoyal/ps