Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Kuldeep Kaur vs State Of Raj. & Ors on 17 September, 2009
Author: Dinesh Maheshwari
Bench: Dinesh Maheshwari
1
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8758/2009
Kuldeep Kaur
Vs.
State of Rajasthan & ors.
Date of Order :: 17th September 2009.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI
Mr.B.S.Sandhu, for the petitioner.
....
BY THE COURT:
By way of this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to question the order dated 24.09.2005 (Annex.6) as issued by the Government of Rajasthan in its Colonisation Department and the consequential order dated 28.12.2005 (Annex.7) as issued by the Collector, Hanumangarh. By the impugned orders, a piece of land, as comprised in Kila No.5 of Stone No.157/250 at Chak 37 NGC, earlier recorded in the khatedari of Kartar Singh and others, has been ordered to be recorded as 'Gair Mumkin Shamshan' and in its place, a piece of land as comprised in Kila No.21 of Stone No.157/256 has been ordered to be recorded in the khatedari of the said Kartar Singh and others.
From the averments as taken in the petition, it appears that the petitioner filed a suit before the SDO, Hanumangarh in the month of March 1996 seeking declaration of her 2 khatedari rights in the land as comprised in Kila Nos.1 to 5 of Stone No.157/250 at Chak 37 NGC. However, according to the petitioner, during the pendency of the suit, in exchange of the land of the said Kila No.5 of Stone No.157/250, she was given possession of the land as comprised in Kila No.21 of Stone No.157/256. The suit as filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the SDO on 26.03.2003. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Hanumangarh ('the RAA') that was allowed in relation to Kila Nos.1 to 4 by the judgment and decree dated 27.08.2004. However, in relation to Kila No.5, the appeal was dismissed by the RAA while agreeing with the finding of the Trial Court that said land of Kila No.5 had been given for cremation ground; and the rights, if possessed by the petitioner, have come to an end in regard to the said land. The petitioner submits that she has preferred an appeal to the extent her rights have been denied by the RAA that remains pending before the Board of Revenue.
The petitioner contends that in order to frustrate her claim, the private respondents moved an application for recording the aforesaid Kila No.21 in their name and the aforesaid Kila No.5 as Shamshan Ghat; and such a proposition has been accepted by the authorities by the orders 3 impugned. According to the petitioner, the impugned orders have been passed without opportunity of hearing to her; and when the matter remains subjudice before the competent Court, such orders might come in her way for declaration of khatedari rights as claimed.
Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the material placed on record, this Court is unable to find any reason to entertain this writ petition.
According to the submissions of the petitioner, her claim for declaration of khatedari rights remains pending before the Board of Revenue. If during the pendency of the litigation, any such event has taken place that might have any relevance or bearing on her rights as claimed, it remains inexplicable as to what prevented the petitioner from placing the facts before the Court concerned while seeking appropriate orders in that regard. With the matter being admittedly subjudice, this Court finds no reason to take up consideration of any challenge by the petitioner to the orders impugned in this writ petition and thereby to open a parallel enquiry into her rights. It goes without saying that any challenge to the orders impugned by the petitioners depend on existence of some right in her regarding the land in question. 4
The attempt on the part of the petitioner to challenge the impugned orders passed in the year 2005 by way of this writ petition filed in the year 2009 could only be viewed as an oblique attempt to somehow seek parallel enquiry into her rights in the writ jurisdiction; and such an attempt cannot be countenanced.
The petition stands rejected.
(DINESH MAHESHWARI), J.
MK