Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. Agricultural land comprising of Khasra Nos. 156, 157, 158, 163, 164, 165, 166 and Well No. 162 was maufi land of Thakur Shri Gopal through Pujari Shri Hari Vallabh Das. The Maufi land was resumed under the Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagir Act and the land had vested in the State. Under the Act, Mafidars were to set compensation of the resumed land as per the principles laid down in the Act and the Rules itself.

2. It is the case of the petitioners that they were the purchasers of the resumed land from Smt. Bhuri who according to the petitioners was tenant of the land. It is stated that deity - respondent No. 4 was land holder and disputed land was not in KhudKast of the land holder. Smt. Bhuri a recorded tenant of land holder is said to have sold her Khatedari tenant rights to the petitioners vide registered sale-deed in July, 1968. Mutation was also done in favour of the petitioner Gaurishankar on 28.2.1969 and thereafter, the petitioner was recorded as Khatedar tenant. They are in possession since 1968, it is so alleged, it is the contention of the petitioner that despite the fact that compensation had been taken by respondent No. 4 at the time of resumption of maufi, but still in the year 1984, an application was made before the Collector, Jaipur to the effect that the land in question was belonging to Bhog of Thakurji and that name of petitioner had been wrongly recorded in the Revenue Record in the name of respondents and prayed for corrections of the record. Notice was issued to the petitioner under Section 82 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act which was replied to. It was stated in the reply that Bhuri was recorded as tenant in Samvat year 2008 onwards. The Additional Collector had held that Bhuri could not acquire Khatedari right under Section 19 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and, therefore, transfer of land made by her in favour of the petitioners was illegal and, therefore, had made a reference to the Board of Revenue for cancellation of the mutation on 2.11.1985 vide Annex. 6.

3. It is the contention of the petitioners that after resumption of maufi Land, the land stood resumed and Bhuri was recorded as tenant and she was in cultivatory possession of the land in Samvat year 2008. She had automatically acquired the status of Khatedar -tenant. It is the contention of the petitioners that the Additional Collector and the Board of Revenue had erroneously held that Smt. Bhuri was sub-tenant and therefore, could not acquire Khatedari rights under Section 19 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act.

8. It is not disputed that at the time of resumption of Jagir, the petitioners in both the cases were in occupation as cultivators. The question which arises for determination in the present case is whether in the circumstances any right accrues to such so called sub-tenant of the land of Maufi which stood resumed and had vested in the State and whether the land in question was to be treated as Khatedari land of the tenant or not? The counsel for the parties rely on number of judgments. In the case of Ramlal and Ors. v. Board of Revenue and Ors. reported in RRD 1991 (6), the Division Bench of this Court has held that the land if cultivated by tenants after resumption of Jagir, the land should be treated as Khatedari land of the tenant. The Division Bench has further held as under:

13. In the present case from the Revenue Record, the deity was of course a Khatedar at the time of resumption of land under the Jagir Act, but was not cultivating the land itself or through its servants. Even though the petitioners are said to he subtenants, but as a matter of fact, they were tenants on the land for all purposes after the resumption. The petitioners are also in possession of the land for number of decades. The maufi land having been resumed by the State, by no stretch of imagination, it can revert back to the Maufidars, who was only entitled to the compensation of the resumption; In such situation the land in question could not have been entered into or reverted back to the Maufidars and the petitioners or their predecessors, who at the relevant time were recorded in the column of Cultivators, did acquire the right from the relevant Jamabandi of the years 2008 to 2021 in regard to the land in question.