[2023:RJ-JD:35207] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15354/2023
1. Chhogi D/o Ota Ram, Wo Ram Lal, Aged About 60 Years, By Caste Dangi, Resident Of Bali. At Present Krishi Upaj Mandi, Sumerpur District Pali.
2. Phulki D/o Ota Ram, W/o Ram Lal @ Lakma Ram, Aged About 63 Years, Resident Of Boya Tehsil Bali District Pali.
3. Leela D/o Ota Ram, W/o Soma Ram @ Nena Ram, Aged About 57 Years, Resident Of Boya Tehsil Bali District Pali.
----Petitioners Versus
1. LRs Of Vana Ram S/o Vena Ram, By Caste Bhambi, Resident Of Bhagli, Tehsil Bali District Pali. 1/1. Hansa Devi W/o Late Vana Ram, By Caste Bhambi, Resident Of Bhagli, Tehsil Bali District Pali. 1/2. Chhagan Lal S/o Late Vana Ram, By Caste Bhambi, Resident Of Bhagli, Tehsil Bali District Pali. 1/3. Heera Lal S/o Late Vana Ram, By Caste Bhambi, Resident Of Bhagli, Tehsil Bali District Pali.
1/4. Vikram S/o Late Vana Ram, By Caste Bhambi, Resident Of Bhagli, Tehsil Bali District Pali.
1/5. Rekhi D/o Late Vana Ram, By Caste Bhambi, Resident Of Bhagli, Tehsil Bali District Pali.
1/6. Bhuti D/o Late Vena Ram, By Caste Bhambi, Resident Of Bhagli, Tehsil Bali District Pali.
2. Gajro W/o Late Nenaji, By Caste Meghwal, Resident Of Bhagli At Present Khudala Tehsil Bali District Pali.
3. Ramesh S/o Late Nenaji, By Caste Meghwal, Resident Of Bhagli At Present Khudala Tehsil Bali District Pali.
4. Mangi Lal S/o Late Nenaji, By Caste Meghwal, Resident Of Bhagli At Present Khudala Tehsil Bali District Pali.
5. Kamla D/o Late Nanaji, By Caste Meghwal, Resident Of Bhagli At Present Khudala Tehsil Bali District Pali.
6. State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar, Bali District Pali.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Budha Ram Choudhary
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Choudhary
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI Judgment (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 08:05:03 AM) [2023:RJ-JD:35207] (2 of 7) [CW-15354/2023] Reserved on 11/10/2023 Pronounced on 20/10/2023
1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:
"It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate writ, order or direction :
(i) The impugned judgment dated 29.08.2023 (Ann.6) passed by learned Board of Revenue, Ajmer, judgment dated 24.12.2018 (Ann.5) passed by learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Pali and judgment and decree dated 29.12.2016 (Ann.4) passed by learned Sub Divisional Officer, Bali District Pali may kindly be quashed and set aside.
(ii) The suit filed by respondents under section 88, 188 Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 may kindly be ordered to be dismissed.
(iii) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners."
2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel of the petitioners, are that the respondent no.1 (since deceased represented through his legal representatives respondents no.1/1 to 1/6 herein) instituted a suit (registered as Revenue Case No. 237/2008) under Sections 88 & 188 Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1955') before the learned Sub Divisional Officer (SDO), Bali, District Pali (Rajasthan) against the petitioners and respondents no.2 to 6 for declaration of khatedari rights and permanent injunction, stating therein that a land comprising old khasra no.144 measuring 16 bigha 16 biswa (new khasra no.293 rakba 3.36 hectares) situated (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 08:05:03 AM) [2023:RJ-JD:35207] (3 of 7) [CW-15354/2023] in Village-Bhagli, Tehsil-Bali was illegally, fraudulently and in collusion with the official of the settlement department, got recorded in the name of one Ota Ram (Otiya) (since deceased represented by his legal representatives-petitioners herein). It was thus prayed in the suit that such wrongful and fraudulent recording pertaining to the land in question may be cancelled and thereafter, the land in question may be recorded in the name of the respondents no.1 to 5 (private respondents), being the khatedar and descendants of the original khatedar Late Vena Ram (Veniya).
2.1. Thereafter, the learned SDO, after hearing the parties, vide the impugned judgment & decree dated 29.12.2016, allowed the aforementioned suit and the land in question was ordered to be recorded in the name of the respondent no. 1 to 5. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners preferred an appeal (registered as Revenue Appeal No. 17/2017) before the learned Revenue Appellate Authority (RAA), Pali, under Section 223 of the Act of 1955, which was dismissed vide the impugned judgment dated 24.12.2018. Against the said judgment of the learned Revenue Appellate Authority, the petitioners preferred a second appeal (registered as Appeal/Decree/TA/ 362/2019/Pali) under Section 224 of the Act of 1955 before the learned Board of Revenue (BoR) for Rajasthan, Ajmer, which too was dismissed vide the impugned judgment dated 29.08.2023, while upholding the impugned judgment passed by the learned RAA. Thus, the present petition has been preferred claiming the afore-quoted reliefs. (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 08:05:03 AM) [2023:RJ-JD:35207] (4 of 7) [CW-15354/2023]
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the private respondents claimed themselves to be the descendants of Rama s/o Vena Ram (Veniya) while showing the mutation entry no.28 dated 21.10.1962, despite the fact that the said mutation entry was recorded in name of Rama s/o Keniya and not in the name of Ram s/o Vena Ram (Veniya), and therefore, the averments made by the private respondents were baseless and false.
3.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioners' father (Late Ota Ram) was the cultivator of the land in question and the lagan and other land expenses were also paid by the petitioners and their late father, and therefore the impugned judgments are not justified in law.
3.2. Learned counsel also submitted that the land in question was cultivated by the petitioners and their father for last 60 years. It was further submitted that the learned revenue courts below clearly fell into an error of law, in passing the impugned judgments.
3.3. In support of such submissions, learned counsel relied upon the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ravinder Kaur Grewal & Ors. Vs Manjit Kaur & Ors. (2019) 8 SCC 729; and Padhiyar Prahladji Chenaji (Deceased) Through Lrs Vs Maniben Jagmalbhai (Deceased) Through Lrs & Ors. (2022) 12 SCC 128.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that in the mutation entry (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 08:05:03 AM) [2023:RJ-JD:35207] (5 of 7) [CW-15354/2023] no. 28 dated 21.10.1960, wrong particulars i.e. Rama s/o Keniya, instead of correct particulars i.e. Rama s/o Vena Ram (Veniya) were made. It was further submitted that from the record, it is clear that the petitioners' father (late Ota Ram) was in illegal and unauthorized possession of the land in question. 4.1. It was also submitted that the land in question is an ancestral property of the private respondents and the name of the petitioners' father in regard to the said land was wrongly recorded, and therefore, the learned revenue courts below have rightly passed the impugned judgments, which do not call for any interference by this Court in the instant petition.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case alongwith the judgments cited at the Bar.
6. This Court observes that Late Vana Ram s/o Vena Ram, who is represented through his legal representatives respondent no.1/1 to 1/6 instituted the aforementioned suit before the learned SDO against the petitioners and the respondent no. 2 to 6 for declaration of khatedari rights and permanent injunction, which was allowed vide the impugned judgment & decree 29.12.2016. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the petitioners preferred the appeal before the learned RAA, but the same was dismissed vide the impugned judgment dated 24.12.2018; the second appeal before the learned BoR against the judgment of the learned RAA was also dismissed vide the impugned judgment dated 29.08.2023.
7. This Court further observes that the private respondents are the legal heirs of Vena Ram (Veniya) s/o Khushala and as per the (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 08:05:03 AM) [2023:RJ-JD:35207] (6 of 7) [CW-15354/2023] issue no.3 decided by the learned SDO, the land in question was not recorded in the name of all the legal heirs of Veniya. This Court also observes that as per the issues decided by the learned SDO, at the time of land settlement proceedings, the father of the petitioners filed an application before the Assistant Land Settlement Officer, Jodhpur (Camp Bali) for recording his name in the revenue records as khatedar of the land in question, whereupon, the said authority, without following the due procedure and without any order of the competent Court, in an inappropriate manner ordered recording of the name of the petitioners' father, in regard to the land in question, in the revenue records.
8. This Court also observes that the learned SDO recorded that the petitioners' father came in possession of the land in question in Samwat 2015 itself, but the (petitioners' father) did not make any endeavour to get the land in question recorded in his name; it was only after 18 years of such possession, that the petitioners' father filed the application before the Assistant Land Settlement Officer for recording of his name on Samwat 2023 (calender year 2017), which clearly shows that the petitioners' father did not approach the said authority with clean hands, and thus, the learned SDO has rightly passed in the impugned judgment and decree in favour of the private respondents.
9. This Court further observes that the learned SDO had passed the impugned judgment & decree, after taking into due consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case and after duly appreciating the evidence placed on record before it, (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 08:05:03 AM) [2023:RJ-JD:35207] (7 of 7) [CW-15354/2023] and therefore, the RAA as well as BoR were perfectly justified in upholding the same, vide the impugned judgments. In this view of the matter, this Court does not find any reason to make interference in the concurrent findings of the three learned revenue courts below in the instant petition.
10. The judgments at the Bar on behalf of the petitioners also do not render any assistance to their case.
11. In light of the aforesaid observations and looking into the factual matrix of the present case, this Court does not find it a fit case so as to grant any relief to the petitioners in the present petition.
12. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.
(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
SKant/-
(Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 08:05:03 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)