Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Sarwan Lal And Anr vs B O R & Ors on 24 September, 2012
Author: Ajay Rastogi
Bench: Ajay Rastogi
In The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench, Jaipur O R D E R S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13019/2012 Sarwan Lal & Anr. Vs. Board of Revenue & Ors. Date Of Order :: 24.09.2012 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. R.K. Goyal, for petitioner.
Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner-plaintiff assailing order of Board of Revenue dt.07.05.2012 reversing judgment & decree of the revenue appellate authority dt.27.05.2003 affirmed order of Assistant Collector dt.29.11.1999.
Revenue suit came to be filed by the petitioner for declaration & correction of entries U/s 88 & 188 of Raj. Tenancy Act,1955 as regards subject land of khasra-320/1 confined to 39 bighas & 4 biswas and as regards part of the subject land khatedari rights were granted of 24 bighas of land out of 63 bighas & 4 biswas which was in possession of the petitioners. The Assistant Collector in its order dt.29.11.1999 after examining the material which came on record observed that as per revenue records during Samvat-2048-2051 subject land of khasra-320/1 measuring 39 bighas & 4 biswas was recorded as Gair Mumkiin Chattan Sivai-Chak and during Samvat-2011-2016 no entries were made regarding cultivation if any and as regards Samvat-2017-19 there was no entry regarding possession and for Samvat-2020-27 revenue records were not placed by the petitioner on record and in Samvat-2028 khasra-320/1 measuring 63 bighas and 4 biswas, 37 bighas & 4 biswas was recorded as Gair Mumkin Chattan and as regards-2029-33 it was recorded as Gair Mumkin Chattan and after Samvat-2034 no revenue record was furnished and the details of 'khasra parivartansheel' has been referred to in detail by the authority in its order dt.29.11.1999 and taking note thereof it was finally observed that as per revenue records of khasra-320/1 39 bighas & 4 biswas was consistently recorded as Gair Mumkin Chattan and the land which was shown to be in possession of petitioners of 24 bighas khatedari rights were granted to the petitioner and further observed that as regards 39 bighas & 4 biswas of subject land the petitioners failed to show that they were in possession since Samvat-2011 and the petitioners have not been able to make out case for claiming khatedari rights over the subject land of khasra-320/1 (39 bighas 4 biswas) in question and accordingly the suit was dismissed vide its order dt.29.11.1999, against which appeal came to be preferred by the petitioners and after taking note of the finding of fact but without assigning any reason, the revenue appellate authority decreed the suit as regards the subject land arising from khasra-320/1 39 bighas & 4 biswas and it was held that the subject land which was recorded as Sivai-Chak Gair Mumkin Chattan deserves to be cancelled and the petitioners are entitled for grant of khatedari rights. The State Government preferred appeal against order of the revenue appellate authority and since there was delay, also filed application seeking condonation of delay U/s 5 of Limitation Act and the Board of Revenue while considering the appeal on merits & so also application U/s 5 of Limitation Act arrived to a conclusion that State Government has made out a case seeking condondation of delay and accordingly delay was condoned and the appeal was heard on merits and it was observed in para-14 as under :-
"??? ???? ???????? ?? ???? ?? ???????? ??????? ???????????? ?????? ????????? ???? 39 ???? 4 ?????? ?? ???? ?????? ????? ????? ?? ??? ??, ?? ?????????? ??? ????? ?? ?????? ??????? ???????? ?? ???????? ?????? ?? ?? ?????? ????? 2027 ?? 2052 ?? ???? ????? 320/1 ?? ??? ???? ??? ?? ??? ??? ????? ??? ?????? 39 ???? 4 ?????? ?? ????? 2048 ?? ??? ??? ??? ?? ?? ??????? 6 ???? ?? ????? 6 ???? ?? ????? 2028 ?? ??? ??? ??? ????? ????? ??? ??| ??? ??? ????/??????? ??? ?? ????? ???? ????? ?????? ???, ???? ????? ????? ???, ??????? ????? ????, ??????? ????? ???????, ????? ????? ???? ???, ????? ?? ??????? ????? ???? ??? ?? ??? ??| ?? ????? ?? ????? 2047 ?? ?????? 20 ???? ?? ????? 2032 ??? ??| ???? ????? 2048?? ???? ??? ?? 39 ???? 4 ?????? ?? ????? ??? ??| ?? ????????? ?????? ?? ?????? ?? ?? ????/?????????? ?? ?? ?????? ?????? ?????? ?? ??????? ???? ?? ?? ????????? ???? ?? ????? 2011 ?? ?? ???? ?????? ????? ????? ??| ?? ?????? ????? ?????? ???????? ?????? ????? 2011 ?? ?????? 39 ???? 4 ?????? ???? ?? ????/?????????? ?? ????? ????? ????? ????? ???????? ????? ?????? ???????? ?? ???????? ?? ?????????? ??? ????? ?????? ?? ??? ???? ???? ??| ???? ?? ??????? ?????? ?????? ?? ?????? ??, ?????-??-4 ??? ??? ???? ????? 2052-55 ?????? ???? ????? 320/1/1/549 ???? 12 ???? ????? ????? ???? ??? ??????? ?? ???? ????? 320/1/551 ???? 12 ???? ??????? ???????? ????????? ??????? ??? ?? ??? ???????? ???? ??| ???? ??????? ???????? ?? ?? ???????? ?? ?? ?? ????? ?? ?? ????? 2032 ?? ???? ????? 320/1 ?? ??? ???? 63 ???? 4 ?????? ??| ???? ??? ????? ?? 12 ???? ???? ????? ???? ???? ?? ??? ???? ????? 320/1/1549 ?? ??? ??? ???????? ??? ???? ?? ??? ?? 12 ???? ???? ???? ????? 320/1/551 ?? ??? ??? ??????? ???????? ????? ??????? ??? ?? ??? ???? ?? ???| ??? ???? 39 ???? 4 ?????? ????????? ?????? ?? ??? ??? ???? ???| ?? ?????? ??????/???????? ?? ????? ???? ?? ?????? ????? ????? ?? ???? ???? 24 ???? ?? ???????? ????? ??? ?? ???? ?? ???? ???????? ?? ??? ???? ??| ???? 24 ???? ???? ?? ??? ??? ??? 39 ???? 4 ?????? ?? ????? 2011 ?? ?????? ???? ?????-????? ????? ???? ??? ???? ??? ??| Taking note thereof, the appeal preferred at the behest of the State Government came to be allowed by the Board of Revenue vide order dt.07.05.2012 affirming the finding of fact recorded by the Assistant Collector based on revenue records.
The main thrust of submission of counsel is that application seeking condonation of delay U/s 5 of Limitation Act was decided by the Board of Revenue in mechanical/cursory manner without taking note of explanation furnished regarding delay and further submits that they were in possession over the subject land in question since Samvat-2011 as such they have become entitled for grant of khatedari rights but that was not considered and examined by the Board of Revenue in its order impugned and in support of the submissions placed reliance upon the judgment in State of Raj. Vs. Sukhdev Singh, 1997 RRD 351 & Suraj Mal Vs. The State, 1959 RRD 173.
The submissions made by the counsel does not hold good for the reason that finding of fact recorded by the Assistant Collector was affirmed by the Board of Revenue and that the petitioners are unable to establish that they were in possession over the subject land since Samvat-2011 and apart from it the details of consistent revenue records have been noticed by the Assistant Collector in its order and observed that the subject land was throughout recorded as Gair Mumkin Chattan and khatedari rights could not be granted to the petitioners regarding the subject land and part of the land arising from khasra-320/1 on which they were in possession of 24 bighas khatedari rights were granted in their favour and being finding of fact no contrary material was placed by the petitioners on record which could divest the finding of fact recorded by the Assistant Collector and affirmed by the Board of Revenue and as regards the observations made by the revenue appellate authority, it appears to the Court that the finding recorded by the Assistant Collector has not been properly appreciated which was looked into by the Board of Revenue while being affirmed under the order impugned dt.07.05.2012 and there appears no manifest error being committed by the Board of Revenue which may require interference by this Court.
As regards the submission made regarding delay & entertaining application U/s 5 of Limitation Act suffice it say that application was examined by the Board of Revenue and after recording its due satisfaction regarding the explanation furnished, considered it appropriate to condone the delay and hear the appeal on merits and since detailed reasons have been assigned while condoning the delay in filing of the appeal at the behest of the State Government, there appears no apparent error as regards satisfaction recorded by the Board of Revenue condoning delay and hear the appeal on merits. The judgments on which counsel placed reliance may not be of any assistance to him in the facts of the instant case.
Consequently, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
(Ajay Rastogi),J.
VS Shekhawat/-p.7 13019cw12Sep24FnlDsps.doc Certificate - All corrections have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed/Vijay Singh Shekhawat/PAJW