Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ranjeet Singh & Ors vs State & Ors on 6 January, 2017
Author: Sangeet Lodha
Bench: Sangeet Lodha
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 1438 / 2014
1. Ranjeet Singh, Age about 70 years,
2. Om Prakash, Age about 68 years,
3. Subhash, Age 66 years,
all are sons of Surja Ram, By Caste Jat, Residing at: Village
Dobi, Tehsil Bhadra, Dist. Hanumangarh.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan through Tehsildar Bhadra, Distt.
Hanumangarh.
2. The Additional Collector, Nohar, Distt. Hanumangarh.
3. Gyani Ram
4. Daya Ram both are sons of Dhanna Ram, R/o Village Dobi,
Tehsil Bhadra, Dist. Hanumangarh.
5. Dharam Singh Son of Rati Ram, By Caste Jat, R/o: Village
Dobi, Tehsil Bhadra, Dist. Hanumangarh
6. Bhag Singh son of Girdhari
7. Ramkumar Son of Girdhari
8. Jaikauri Widow of Girdhari Lal
All by caste Jat, Resident of Village Dobi, Tehsil Bhadra, Dist.
Hanumangarh.
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Varun Goyal
For Respondents No.1 & 2 : None present
For Respondents No.3 to 8: Mr. Moti Singh
_____________________________________________________
(2 of 5)
[CW-1438/2014]
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA
Judgment 06/01/2017
1. This petition is directed against order dated 15.4.13 of the Board of Revenue Rajasthan, whereby revision petitions preferred by the petitioners against the order dated 13.3.13 passed by the Additional Collector, Nohar, District Hanumangarh, in Appeal No.32/11, 33/11 and 34/11 stand dismissed.
2. The facts relevant are that the disputed land was entered in gair khatedari of the petitioners by the Settlement Department. Thereafter, vide order dated 7.11.94 passed by the Tehsildar, Bhadra the land was mutated in the names of the petitioners as their khatedari land vide mutation entry no.217 dated 2.12.94. Being aggrieved by the mutation effected as aforesaid, the private respondents herein preferred an appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer, Bhadra , which was dismissed as barred by limitation. The review petition filed was also dismissed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Bhadra vide order dated 30.4.12. Thereafter, the petitioners preferred appeals against the order dated 7.11.94 passed by the Tehsildar, Bhadra before the Additional Collector, Nohar. The appeals preferred were partly allowed by the Additional Collector, Nohar vide order dated 13.3.13, whereby while setting aside the order passed by the Tehsildar granting khatedari right in favour of the petitioner and the mutation made pursuant thereto, the matter was remanded to Tehsildar to make appropriate inquiry regarding gair khatedari rights entered in the name of the petitioners and pass appropriate order.
(3 of 5) [CW-1438/2014]
3. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Aditional Collector, as aforesaid, the petitioners preferred revision petitions before the Board of Revenue, which stand dismissed by the order impugned. Hence, this petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Board of Revenue has seriously erred in confirming the order dated 13.3.13 passed by the Additional Collector, Nohar. Learned counsel submitted that it is the admitted position on record that the petitioners are gair khatedar tenant of the land in question and they are recorded so even in the settlement record and other revenue record and thus, the Tehsildar committed no illegality in passing the order dated 7.11.94 granting khatedari rights to the petitioners. Learned counsel submitted that the Board of Revenue without any basis recorded the finding that the Tehsildar should have made inquiry regarding allotment, payment of installments and possession whereas, the petitioners are the tenants in possession of the land even before coming into force of Rajasthan Tenancy Act,1955 and therefore, the question of allotment and payment of installment does not arise. Learned counsel submitted that the respondent who has no right whatsoever over the land in question, was not entitled to question the order dated 7.11.94 passed by the Tehsldar, Bhadra.
5. On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the private respondent submitted that the land in question does not belong to the petitioners rather, the same is siway chak government land. Learned counsel submitted that as a matter of fact, the land in question forms part of gair mumkin rasta in respect whereof (4 of 5) [CW-1438/2014] nobody can claim khatedari rights. Learned counsel submitted that the land was mutated in the name of the petitioners on the basis of order dated 7.11.94, which is a forged document. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner had applied for certified copy of order dated 7.11.94 and as per the report made by the copying section on the application made by the petitioners the order no.94 dated 7.11.94 was never issued by the office of Tehsildar (Revenue), Bhadra and therefore, the entire matter needs to be investigated properly and thus, the order impugned passed by the Board of Revenue does not warrant any interference by this court.
6. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record.
7. It has come on record that the Tehsildar without conducting any inquiry worth the name instructed the Patwari to enter the mutation of khatedari of the land in question in favour of the petitioners on the basis of their alleged gair khatedari rights. Obviously, without ascertaining the factum of the petitioners entitlement to khatedari rights, the Tehsildar was not justified in straight away conferring khatedari rights upon the petitioners. It is true that the petitioners did not claim the khatedari rights over the land in question on the basis of any allotment made in their favour and therefore, the question with regard to payment of installment etc. may not be relevant. But then, the action of the Tehsildar in straight away directing the Patwari to enter the mutation in the names of the petitioners without determining the entitlement of the petitioners for khatedari rights over the land in question apparently suffers from jurisdictional error. Moreover, there exists (5 of 5) [CW-1438/2014] some doubt about the existence of order no.94 dated 7.11.94 being issued by the Tehsildar (Revenue) directing Patwari to enter the khatedari of the petitioners over the land in question in the revenue record. In this view of the matter, the order impugned passed by the Board of Revenue directing Tehsildar to complete the inquiry while maintaining the gair khatedari of the petitioners entered in the revenue record till then, does not suffer from any infirmity, illegality or jurisdictional error so as to warrant interference by this court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
8. At this stage, the counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the Tehsildar may be directed to complete the inquiry within the time frame.
9. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the Tehsildar to complete the inquiry regarding the petitioners' entitlement to khatedari rights over the land in question expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the receipt of certified copy of this order.
(SANGEET LODHA)J. Aditya/