Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Mohanlal vs Mandir Murti Thakur Shri Shyam Sunderji on 27 February, 2019
Author: Sangeet Lodha
Bench: Sangeet Lodha
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ No. 10441/2018
Mohanlal S/o Shri Tej Ram Ji Kalal, Aged 63 Years, resident of
Savina, Tehsil Girva, District Udaipur (Raj).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Mandir Murti Thakur Shri Shyam Sunderji, Udaipur
through Assistant Commissioner, Devsthan Department,
Udaipur (Raj).
2. UIT, Udaipur (Rajasthan).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. B.K. Bhatnagar
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA
Order 27/02/2019
1. This petition is directed against judgment dated 1.12.16 of the Board of Revenue Rajasthan, Ajmer, whereby a second appeal preferred by the petitioner against the judgment and decree dated 29.2.12 passed by the Land Settlement Officer and Ex-officio Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur, has been dismissed. The petitioner has also questioned the legality of order dated 10.1.18 passed by the Board of Revenue whereby a petition preferred by the petitioner seeking review of the aforesaid order dated 1.12.16 stands rejected.
2. The facts relevant are that the petitioner preferred a suit under Sections 88 & 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act') for possession and declaration of khatedari rights in respect of agriculture land ad measuring 4.5300 hectare comprising Khasra No.392 (Old No.323) Araji No.2844, situated in (2 of 4) [CW-10441/2018] Village Nela, Patwar Mandal Savina Jogi Talab, Tehsil Girva, District Udaipur. The declaration was sought by the petitioner on the ground of long possession over the land for last 50 years. In the revenue record, the land is entered in the name of Thakur Shyamsundarji, the temple under the control of Department of Devasthan, Government of Rajasthan.
3. The suit was dismissed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Girva vide judgment and decree dated 23.12.10, observing that the land belongs to the idol, which is a perpetual minor and in respect thereof vide judgment dated 21.12.71 and thereafter vide judgment and decree dated 19.4.93 passed in yet another suit being No.42/91, directions were already issued to dispossess the petitioner herein from the disputed land and the possession of the land was taken on 18.7.95. Precisely, the trial court arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner cannot claim any khatedari rights over the disputed land belonging to deity.
4. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 23.12.10 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Girva as aforesaid, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 29.2.12. Thereafter, the second appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by the Board of Revenue vide judgment dated 1.12.16. The review petition preferred by the petitioner seeking review of order dated 1.12.16 passed by the Board of Revenue was also dismissed vide order impugned dated 10.1.18. Hence, this petition.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the learned trial court had decided the suit without considering the material on record objectively, which has resulted in erroneous (3 of 4) [CW-10441/2018] finding being arrived at. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is in possession of the disputed land for last 50 years and therefore, he was entitled for declaration, as prayed for. Learned counsel submits that as a matter of fact while deciding the suit, the petitioner was not extended full opportunity of hearing by the learned trial court and thus, the matter deserves to be remanded to the trial court for decision afresh.
6. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel and perused the material on record.
7. Indisputably, the disputed land is entered in the revenue record as khatedari land of deity Thakur Shyamsundarji. It is not in dispute that vide judgment and decree dated 21.12.71 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer in a suit filed in the year 1970, deity was declared as khatedar of the disputed land and thereafter, the Department of Devasthan, Government of Rajasthan, filed a suit for possession before the Assistant Collector, which was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 19.4.93 and in execution thereof, the petitioner herein, was dispossessed from the disputed land and thus, the lis between the parties regarding khatedari rights over the land in question stands adjudicated and the decree passed by the court of competent jurisdiction attained finality. In this view of the matter, the petitioner could not have maintain a fresh suit for possession and declaration of khatedari rights over the disputed land. The land in question being khatedari land of deity, a perpetual minor, question of the petitioner acquiring the khatedari rights over the same on the basis of alleged long possession does not arise.
(4 of 4) [CW-10441/2018]
8. In the considered opinion of this Court, the concurrent findings arrived at by the courts cannot be said to be capricious or perverse so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
9. In the result, the writ petition fails, it is hereby dismissed in limine.
(SANGEET LODHA),J 35-Vij/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)