Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Bajrang Lal Agarwal vs B O R, Ajmer And Ors on 12 July, 2019
Author: Veerendra Singh Siradhana
Bench: Veerendra Singh Siradhana
(1 of 12) [CW-2102/2007]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2102/2007
Bajrang Lal Agarwal son of Shri Chajuram Choudhary aged 61
years, r/o Samod, presently residing at C-10, Choudhary House,
Sawaisingh Highway, Banipark, Jaipur
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Board of Revenue, Ajmer
2. The Settlement Commissioner, Jaipur.
3. The Settlement Officer, Jaipur
4. The Assistant Settlement Officer Chomu
5. Shyam Sunder Bhatra S/o Shri Nathmal Batra (Since
deceased) through his legal heirs
5/1 Kamal Sharma S/o late Shri Shyam Sunder Bhatra
5/2 Sampatti d/o late Shri Shyam Sunder Bhatra wife of Shri
Pawan Kumar Sharma
5/3 Snehlata d/o late Shri Shyam Sunder Bhatra wife of Shri
Harihar
5/4 Ansu @ Meena d/o late Shri Shyam Sunder Bhatra
5/5 Vijay Kumar Sharma s/o late Shri Shyam Sunder Bhatra
All residents of near Bandha Ringus Road, Chomu, District Jaipur.
6. Kabbu Lal S/o Shri Raghuvar Dayal by caste Nai (since
deceased) through his legal heir
6/1 Smt. Vimla Devi wife of Kabbulal
6/2 Kiram Devi wife of Vikram d/o Kabbulal
6/3 Jyoti d/o Kabbulal
6/4 Kamal d/o Kabbulal
All residents of Village Chomu District Jaipur Ajitpura @ Baseda,
Tehsil Niwai District Tonk
..Non petitioners
7. Prakash Chand S/o Ram Chandra
8. Ramech Chand s/o Ram Chandra (since deceased) through his
legal heirs
8/1 Smt. Lalita w/o late Ramesh Chand
8/2 Gjanand s/o late Ramesh Chand
(D.B. SAW/1154/2019 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Downloaded on 30/08/2019 at 10:39:05 PM)
(2 of 12) [CW-2102/2007]
8/3 Himanshu S/o late Ramesh Chand
8/4 Rohit Kumar s/o late Ramesh Chand
8/5 Seema d/o late Ramesh Chand
8/6 Meena d/o late Ramesh Chand
9. Rameshwar s/o Ram Chandra
10. Rajendra son of Ram Chandra (since deceased) through his
legal heirs:
10/1 Rajiv son of late Rajendra
10/2 Ajay son of late Rajendra
10/3 Renu d/o late Rajendra
10/4 Madhu d/o late Rajendra
10/5 Sonu d/o late Rajendra
All by case Jangid resident of Chomu Tehsil Chomu District
Jaipur.
11. Smt. Anju Devi wife of Shri Puran by caste Jangid Brahmin
resident of Chomu Tehsil Chomu District Jaipur.
12. Nicky
13. Vicky
14. Guddu
All minor through natural guardian and mother Smt. Anju Devi
wife of Shri Puran R/o Chomu Tehsil Chomu District Jaipur.
15. State of Rajasthan through Tehsildar Chomu District Jaipur.
Performa respondent
16. Dwarkia Prasad Sharma son of Shri Damodar Prasad Sharma
by caste Begra Brahmin resident of village Daulatpura (Kota)
Tehsil Ajmer District Jaipur.
----Non petitioner
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.N. Kumawat
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Akshay Sharma, AGC for State,
Mr. Pawan Pareek, for respondents
No. 5 and 16, Mr. Raghuvendra Singh, Mr. Abhishek Goteeha, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VEERENDRA SINGH SIRADHANA Order (D.B. SAW/1154/2019 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 30/08/2019 at 10:39:05 PM) (3 of 12) [CW-2102/2007] 12 July 2019 Aggrieved of the order dated 28th February, 2006 (Annex.7) and 7th February, 2007 (Annex.8), the petitioner while instituting the instant writ application has prayed for the following relief(s):
"(a) By an appropriate writ, order or direction the impugned judgment dated 28-02-2006 (Annexure-7) and dated 7.2.2007 (Annexure-8) may kindly be quashed and set aside and consequent there to the judgment dated 7.12.2004 (Annexure-6) dated 24.3.2003 (Annexure-5), dated 13.11.1995 (Annexure-
4) may kindly be upheld with costs throughout in favour of the petitioner.
(b) Any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper be also passed in favour of the petitioner."
Briefly, the essential skeletal material facts which needs to be taken note of for appreciation of the controversy raised are:
that one Kanhaiya Lal S/o Balu was the recorded Khatedar of land bearing old Khasra No. 1919/1 measuring 1 Bigha 3 Biswa situated in village Chomu District, Jaipur. The State Government acquired the subject land under Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 for installation of 132 KV Grid Sub-Station at Chomu. It is pleaded case of the parties that pending acquisition proceedings, Kanhaiyalal died leaving behind successor Smt. Narayani Devi and Kabbulal, and accordingly, the land was mutated in their name. Smt. Narayani Devi sold the subject land involved herein in favour of Mr. Shyam Sundar Bhatara through a registered Sale Deed dated 12th September, 1973. In response to a notice issued to Smt. Narayani Devi by Land Acquisition Officer to receive an award of compensation of Rs. 1039.50 with reference to Khasra No. 1919/1, was responded with the statement by Smt. Narayani (D.B. SAW/1154/2019 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 30/08/2019 at 10:39:05 PM) (4 of 12) [CW-2102/2007] Narain Devi through an application stating that the subject land was sold to Mr. Shyam Sundar Bhatara, and therefore, amount of compensation be also paid to him. An application was also filed on 21st March, 1990 before the Assistant Settlement Officer (A.S.O.), Chomu for correction of entries in respect of old Khasra No. 1919/1, which was adjudicated upon on 28th April, 1990.
Mr. Shyam Sunder Bhatra (Respondent No.5), aggrieved of the order dated 28th April, 1990, instituted an appeal before Settlement Officer, Chomu, Jaipur, who remanded the matter back to Assistant Settlement Officer (A.S.O.) vide order dated 30 st January, 1991. Latter on, vide order dated 27 th February, 1991, entries were ordered to be made of the name of non-petitioner No.5 (Mr. Shyam Sunder Bhatra), in the revenue record. Respondents No.6 to 13 aggrieved thereupon, successfully appealed to Settlement Officer, Chomu, Jaipur, as would be evident from the order dated 23rd November, 1995. A Second Appeal instituted by respondent No.5, to Settlement Officer, Jaipur was declined on 24th March, 2003 and a Revision Petition was also instituted unsuccessfully before the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer, that was declined on 7th December, 2004. However, Mr. Shyam Sunder Bhatra (Respondent No.5), successfully instituted a Review Petition, decided on 28 th February, 2006. Petitioner aggrieved of the impugned order on the Review Petition dated 28th February, 2006, filed Special Appeal under Section 10 of the Land Revenue Act, 1956, along with an application for leave to appeal. The Additional Registrar (Judl.), Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer, by its order dated 7 th February, 2007 disposed of the application stating that no appeal (D.B. SAW/1154/2019 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 30/08/2019 at 10:39:05 PM) (5 of 12) [CW-2102/2007] lies under Section 10 of the Land Revenue Act, 1956. This is how the instant writ petition has spiraled.
Learned counsel for the petitioner referring to para 7 and 8 of the order made by Settlement Officer, Jaipur, vehemently contended that gross interpolations were observed in the record. It is further contended that Khasra that ought to have been recorded as 1919/1/1, whereas it was repeatedly recorded as Khasra No. 1919/1, in the name of Kanhaiya Lal S/o Balu, and thus, it was an unjust gain and, therefore, all subsequent events were rightly held to be bad in the eye of law.
Learned counsel would further contend that a Revision Petition instituted by Mr. Shyam Sunder Bhatra (Respondent No.5), was also dismissed confirming the order of the Settlement Officer, with a specific observation that the matter was examined in detail by the courts below on the basis of materials available on records, and therefore, the Settlement Commissioner committed no illegality in making the order dated 24th March, 2003. Hence, impugned order made on review application dated 28 th February, 2006, is bad in the eye of law on that count as well.
Per contra; Mr. Raghuvendra Singh and Pawan Pareek, learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 5 and 16, resisting the claim of the petitioner while supporting the impugned orders contended that a complete answer to the submissions put-forth by the counsel for the petitioner, is found under paragraph 9 and 10 of the impugned order made by the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer dated 28th February, 2006. Hence, there is no illegality much less material illegality or irregularity so as to call for any interference by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel (D.B. SAW/1154/2019 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 30/08/2019 at 10:39:05 PM) (6 of 12) [CW-2102/2007] would contend that the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer vide impugned order dated 28th February, 2006, specifically dealt with the matter in the backdrop of documentary evidence available on records in a great detail and found error apparent on the face of record, and therefore, rightly granted review application of the Mr. Shyam Sunder Bhatra (Respondent No.5), which suffers with no illegality. Learned counsel while emphasizing upon the limited scope of judicial review under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has relied upon the following opinions of the Supreme Court:
1. Jasbir Singh v. State of Punjab: (2006) 8 SCC 294,
2. State, through special cell, New Delhi v. Navjot Sandhu:
(2003) 6 SCC 641,
3. D.N. Banerjee v. P.R. Mukherjee: AIR 1953 SC 58,
4. Sarpanch v. Ramgiri Gosavi: AIR 1968 SC 222,
5. Ganpat v. Shashikant: AIR 1978 SC 955,
6. Radhey Shyam & Anr. v. Chhabi Nath & Ors. (2015) 5 SCC 423
7. Gordhan Lal Agarwal v. Mali Ram Modi & Anr.: 2013 (4) RLW 3377 (Raj.), and;
8. Abdul Rehman v. State: AIR 1978 SC 949.
Heard and considered.
Indisputably, in the face of documentary evidence that is available record, as taken note of in a great detail vide impugned order dated 28th February, 2006, it is reflected that the revision petition of Mr. Shyam Sunder Bhatra (Respondent No.5), was dealt with in a cursory manner. On a review application instituted by Mr. Shyam Sunder Bhatra (Respondent No.5), which has been (D.B. SAW/1154/2019 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 30/08/2019 at 10:39:05 PM) (7 of 12) [CW-2102/2007] adjudicated upon vide impugned order dated 28th February, 2006, it would be evident that the moot question for adjudication involved in the case was Whether Khasra No. 1919/1/2 existed independently indicating Mr. Shyam Sunder Bhatra (Respondent No.5), as khatedar or it was a part and parcel of Khasra No. 1919/1? And this is the real question that has been gone into in a great detail on the basis of records while making the impugned order dated 28th February, 2006.
From the events with the time-line, it surfaced the fact that respondent No. 5 was recorded Khatedar, as was evident from records. Further, a report of the Tehsildar dated 18 th May, 2008, also corroborated the fact that Khasra No. 1919/1/2 ad-measuring 1 bighas 3 biswa, was recorded in the name of respondent No. 5 and the Tehsildar also took note of the prevalent khasra numbers. Moreover, on the basis of available records, it was determined that Khasra No. 1919/1/2 with present numbers 3849, 3851, 3852 and 3856, was in existence. Similarly, Khasra No. 1919/1 also existed separately with 10 new khasara numbers. Hence, on a deep meticulous scrutiny and analysis on the basis of materials available on record, the undisputed fact surfaced is that two khasra No. 1919/1/2 and 1919/1, are independent in existence while this fact was not reflected in the revenue maps indicating details of two separate khasra Numbers. The land covered under respective khasras with details of recorded khatedars were also detailed out. Thus, the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer; committed no illegality in correcting the error that was apparent on the face of record. At this juncture, it will be profitable to take note of the contents of paragraph 9 and 10 of the impugned order dated 28th February, 2006, which reads thus:
(D.B. SAW/1154/2019 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 30/08/2019 at 10:39:05 PM) (8 of 12) [CW-2102/2007] "9- bl izdj.k esa fu.kkZ;d eqn~nk ;g gS fd izkFkhZ dh [kkrsnkjh dk vkjkth uacj 1919@1@2 Lora= :i ls jktLo fjdkMZ esa vfLrRo esa gS ;k ;g vkjkth uacj 1919@1 dk gh fgLlk gSA tekcUnh laor 2019 dks ns[kus ls Kkr gksrk gS fd vkjkth uacj 1919@1@2 jdck 1 ch?kk 3 fcLok dUgS;kyky iq= ckyw ds uke ij ntZ gSA rRi'pkr ;g Hkwfe izkFkhZ }kjk dUgS;kyky ds okfjlku ls fnukad 12&9&73 dks jftLMZ fodz; i= ls dz; dh xbZ ,oa ukekUrjdj.k la[;k 641 fnukad 28&2&74 ls izkFkhZ ds uke ij [kkrsnkjh ntZ gqbZA tekcUnh laor 2039 ls 2042 esa ;g Hkwfe izkFkhZ ';kelqUnj ds uke ij ntZ gS ,oa rglhynkj dh fjiksVZ fnukad 18&5&2000 ls Hkh bl rF; dh iqf"V gksrh gS fd vkjkth uacj 1919@1@2 jdck 1 ch?kk 3 fcLok izkFkhZ ds uke ij ntZ gS ftlds gky [kljk uacj 3849] jdck 11 fcLok] 3851 jdck 0-02 fcLok] 3852 jdck 0- 08 gsDVj] 3856 jdck 0-08 gsDVj gSA i=koyh esa miyC/k Hkw izcU/k foHkkx ds feyku {ks=Qy ls ;g Li"V :i ls Kkr gksrk gS fd lkfcd uacj 1919@1@2 feu ds gky uacj dze'k% 3849] 3851] 3852 o 3856 cus gS ,oa blh izdkj lkfcd uacj 1919@1 feu vyx ls vfLrRo esa gS ftlds u;s 10 uacj cus gSA blls ,oa miyC/k leLr jktLo fjdkMZ ls ;g rF; lkQ gksrk gS fd vkjkth uacj 1919@1@2 feu o vkjkth uacj 1919@1 feu nks vyx&vyx Lora= uacj gSA ;g rF; vo'; gS fd jktLo uD'ks esa vkjkth uacj 1919@1@2 vyx ls n'kkZ;k gqvk ugha gSA fdUrq blls ;g ugha ekuk tk ldrk fd vkjkth uacj 1919@1@2 vyx uacj u gksdj 1919@1 dk gh Hkkx gSA fxjnkojh laor 2024 ls 2026 ,oa tekcUnh laor 2019 esa Hkwfe laca/kh fooj.k bl izdkj gS& [kkrsnkj dk uke [kljk uacj {ks=Qy dUgS;kyky iq= ckyw 1919@1@2 1 ch?kk 3 fcLok jke fd'kksj vkuUnh yky tks/kk] ckykcDl 1919@1 8 ch?kk 8 fcLok fo|k/kj] txnh'k] ?khlkyky dkSe czkg~e.k fo|qr foHkkx dh foKfIr fnukad 27 uoEcj] 1970 ls vkjkth uacj 1919@1 jdck 1 ch?kk 3 fcLok 132 ds-oh-fxzM lc LVs'ku] pkSew ds fy, (D.B. SAW/1154/2019 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 30/08/2019 at 10:39:05 PM) (9 of 12) [CW-2102/2007] vokIr dh xbZA izkFkhZ ds [kkrs dh vkjkth uacj 1919@1@2 gS tks blls fHkUu gSA ukekUrjdj.k la[;k 1296 ds vuqlkj vkjkth uacj 1919 dk dqy jdck 8 ch?kk 8 fcLok gS mlesa ls 132 ds-oh-fxzM lc LVs'ku ds fy, 1 ch?kk 3 fcLok Hkwfe fxzM gsrq ukekUrfjr dh xbZ gS ,oa 'ks"k 7 ch?kk 5 fcLok Hkwfe [kkrsnkj eksguyky oxsjg ds uke cnLrqj j[kh xbZ gSA bl vk/kkj ij vizkFkhZ ds vf/koDrk dk dFku fd 132 ds-oh-fxzM lc LVs'ku gsrq izkFkhZ dh vkjkth 1919@1@2 vf/kxzfgr dh xbZ] xyr lkfcr gksrk gSA fo|qr foHkkx dh foKfIr esa Hkh fxzM lc LVs'ku ds fy, vkjkth uacj 1919@1 jdck 1 ch?kk 3 fcLok vokIr gksuk crk;k x;k gS ,oa bUrdky la[;k 1296 ls Hkh vkjkth uacj 1919@1 ls gh 1 ch?kk 3 fcLok Hkwfe ds-oh-fxzM lc LVs'ku ds fy, VªkalQj dh xbZ gSA 10- izLrqr izdj.k esa Hkw izcU/k vk;qDr }kjk vius fu.kZ; fnukad 24&3&2003 esa ds-oh- fxzM lc LVs'ku ds fy, Vkbfiax dh v'kqf) ekurs gq, vkjkth uacj 1919@1@2 vokIr gksus dk d;kl fd;k ftldk dksbZ izekf.kr vk/kkj ugha gS ,oa blh /kkj.kk ij ekuuh; ,dyihB us Hkh vius fu.kZ; fnukad 7&12&2004 esa ;g fu/kkZfjr dj fn;k fd ds-oh-fxzM lc LVs'ku ds fy, vkjkth uacj 1919@1@2 dks gh vokIr fd;k x;k gS fdUrq VkbZfiax dh xyrh ls vkjkth uacj 1919@1 Ni x;k gSA laHkor;k bldk vk/kkj jktLo uD'ks esa vkjkth uacj 1919@1@2 vyx ls iSewn ugha gksuk jgk gS tc fd okLro esa jktLo jsdkMZ ,oa rglhynkj dh fjiksVZ ls ;g iw.kZ:is.k Li"V gS fd ds-oh-fxzM lc LVs'ku ds fy, vkjkth uacj 1919@1 jdck 1 ch?kk 3 fcLok Hkwfe vf/kxzfgr dh xbZ gS tks vU;
[kkrsnkjksa ds uke ij gS ,oa izkFkhZ ds [kkrs dh vkjkth uacj 1919@1@2 gS ,oa mldks vokIr ugha fd;k x;k gS tks vyx ls Lora= vfLrRo esa gSA "
In the case of Jagir Singh versus Ranbir Singh and another:(1979) 1 SCC 560, the apex court of the land held thus:
"6. If the revision application to the High Court could not be maintained under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, could the order of the High Court be sustained under Articloe 227 of the Constitution, as now suggested by the respondent? In the first place the High Court did not purport to exercise its power of superintendence under Article 227. The power under Article 227 is a discretionary power and it is difficult to attribute to the order of the High Court such a source of power when the High Court itself did not, in terms, purport to exercise any such discretionary (D.B. SAW/1154/2019 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 30/08/2019 at 10:39:05 PM) (10 of 12) [CW-2102/2007] power. In the second place the power of judicial superintendence under Article 227 could only be exercised sparingly, to keep subordinate Courts and Tribunals within the bounds of their authority and not to correct mere errors. Where the statute banned the exercise of revisional powers by the High Court, it would indeed require very exceptional circumstances to warrant interference under Article 227 of the Constitution since the power of superintendence was not meant to circumvent statutory law."
In the case of Waryam Singh v. Amarnath: AIR 1954 SC 215, the Supreme Court considered the scope of Article 227 and held that the High Court has not only administrative superintendence over the subordinate courts and tribunals but it has also the power of judicial superintendence. The Supreme Court approved the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Dalmia Jain Airways Ltd. vs. Sukumar Mukherjee [AIR 1951 Cal 193] where the High Court said that the power of superintendence conferred by Article 227 was to be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the subordinate courts within the bounds of their authority and not for correcting their mere errors. The Court said that it was, therefore, a case which called for an interference by the Court of the Judicial Commissioner and it acted quite properly in doing so.
In Bathutmal Raichand Oswal vs. Laxmibai R. Tarta [(1975) 1 SCC 858] Supreme Court again reaffirmed that the power of superintendence of the High Court under Article 227 being extraordinary was to be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases. It said that the High Court could not, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227, interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the subordinate court or tribunal functioned (D.B. SAW/1154/2019 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 30/08/2019 at 10:39:05 PM) (11 of 12) [CW-2102/2007] within the limits of its authority and that it could not correct mere errors of fact by examining the evidence or reappreciating it. The Court further said that the jurisdiction under Article 227 could not be exercised, "as the cloak of an appeal in disguise. It does not lie in order to bring up an order or decision for rehearing of the issues raised in the proceedings". In this case the Supreme Court referred with approval the dictum of Morris, L.J. in R. v. Northumberland Compensation Appeal Tribunal [(1952)1 All ER 122].
In the case of Nagendra Nath Bora v. Commr. Of Hills Divisions [AIR 1958 SC 398] the Supreme Court observed thus:
"It is thus, clear that the powers of judicial interference under Article 227 of the Constitution with orders of judicial or quasi-judicial nature, are not greater than the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. Under Article 226, the power of interference may extend to quashing an impugned order on the ground of a mistake apparent on the face of the record. But under Article 227 of the Constitution, the power of interference is limited to seeing that the tribunal functions within the limits of its authority. "
Applying the principles decidable form the well settled legal propositions of law to the singular factual matrix of the case at hand, as aforesaid; it is evident that the petitioner has failed to make out a case for any interference by this court under Article 227 of the Constitution.
(D.B. SAW/1154/2019 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 30/08/2019 at 10:39:05 PM) (12 of 12) [CW-2102/2007] For the reasons and discussions aforesaid and in view of the factual matrix of the case at hand as well as for the reasons recorded by the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer, supported with reasoning so also keeping in view the limited jurisdiction for interference available under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, I find no case calling for any interference by this Court.
Accordingly, the writ application instituted by the petitioner, fails, and is hereby dismissed. Interim Applications (IA Nos. 39888/2019, 1/2019 and 41368/2019), also stand closed. Interim order, if any, still operating, shall also stand vacated. No costs.
(VEERENDRA SINGH SIRADHANA), J Bmg/25 (D.B. SAW/1154/2019 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 30/08/2019 at 10:39:05 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)