HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14789/2021
1. Firm Shri Shiv Rattan Lal Jwala Prasad Agarwal, Through Its Partner Rajkumar S/o Late Mahaveer Prasad, By Caste Singhaniya, Resident Of C-18, Sadulganj, Bikaner
2. Sharda Devi Podar W/o Krishna Podar, Aged About 70 Years, Bachhawato Ka Chowk, Bada Bazar, Bikaner
----Petitioners Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Mines And Geology, Secretariat, Jaipur
2. The District Collector, Bikaner
3. Tehsildar, Bikaner
4. Hari Singh Shekhawat, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bajju, Tehsil Kolayat, District Bikaner.
5. Madan Lal S/o Tola, Pungalgarh Ke Pas, Nai Ke Dukan, Pungalgarh, Bikaner
6. Aanand Singh S/o Girdhari Singh, Hadla Rawlotan, Tehsil Kolayat, District Bikaner.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikas Balia
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Judgment
10/11/2021
1. By way of present writ petition, petitioners have challenged mutation entry No.815 dated 20.07.2021 and entry No.816 dated 06.08.2021 made by the Patwari Tehsil Kolayat, District Bikaner duly reflected in the Jamabandi (Annex.13).
2. In response to the query raised by the Court as to why the petitioners' writ petition directly challenging the mutation entry should be entertained, Mr. Balia, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the mutation entry could not have been made in (Downloaded on 11/11/2021 at 08:33:53 PM) favour of the respondent No.5 and 6, but for the connivance of the private respondents with the officials of the State authorities.
3. Mr. Balia, narrated the relevant facts and stated that the petitioners were allotted mining lease on 22.04.1963 over the subject land, and the said lease was renewed in the year 1988.
4. While asserting that the said mining lease is still continuing in petitioners' favour and petitioners have been excavating minerals from the contentious land, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that on 02.07.1971 the State had issued a circular, which provided that no land shall be allotted on the leased out area.
5. It is informed by Mr. Balia, that respondent No.5, who did not have any allotment letter, instituted a revenue suit for declaration of khatedari rights, in which petitioners had moved an impleadment application.
6. He further submitted that while the impleadment application and the suit was pending consideration before the competent authority, the respondent No.5 approached the revenue authorities and got the land mutated in his favour.
7. Learned counsel has taken the Court through the report of the Patwari (Annex.14) and pointed out that the respondent No.5 had given absolutely false and incorrect particulars/facts in relation to the allotment letter and pendency of the cases.
8. While pointing out that respondent No.5 in his application clearly stated that allotment letter is not available and in spite of the fact that only an affidavit had been filed, the concerned revenue authority has treated the respondent No.5 to be allottee of the land and has recorded the land in the name of respondent No.5 vide mutation entry No.815 dated 20.07.2021 and thereafter (Downloaded on 11/11/2021 at 08:33:53 PM) mutated the land in the name of respondent No.6 vide entry No.816 dated 06.08.2021.
9. It was also pointed out by Mr. Balia, that the concerned Patwari in his report has stated that there is no dispute pending in relation to said land which makes the report per se factually incorrect and reeks of connivance.
10. While inviting Court's attention towards the above noted facts Mr. Balia, argued that the facts are so glaring that this Court should exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
11. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and upon perusal of the record, without making any observation on the correctness of the assertions so made by the petitioner, this Court feels that even if the facts as stated are correct, this Court should refrain from exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, particularly when there is a challenge to the mutation entry, which requires detailed factual inquiry and determination of factual disputes.
12. Petitioner is supposed to prefer a mutation appeal under Section 75 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 before the competent authority alongwith appropriate application seeking injunction.
13. In case, temporary injunction appeal alongwith the application is filed within a period of two weeks from today, the appellate authority shall look into the matter dispassionately and pass appropriate orders on petitioners' temporary injunction application within a period of two weeks of filing of the stay application.
14. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. (Downloaded on 11/11/2021 at 08:33:53 PM)
15. Stay application also stands disposed of.
(DINESH MEHTA),J 39-Rahul/-
(Downloaded on 11/11/2021 at 08:33:53 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)