Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur vs Sandeep on 7 January, 2021
Bench: Vijay Bishnoi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7487/2020
Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur, Through Its Secretary, Urban
Improvement Trust, Udaipur
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Sandeep S/o Unkarraj Gurjar, Resident Of Kasaron Ki Oal,
Jagdish Chowk At Present Residing At Dhabai House,
Dewali, Goverdhan Vilas, Opposite Police Station, Tehsil
Girwa, District Udaipur.
2. Rishiraj S/o Unkarraj Gurjar, Resident Of Kasaron Ki Oal,
Jagdish Chowk At Present Residing At Dhabai House,
Dewali, Goverdhan Vilas, Opposite Police Station, Tehsil
Girwa, District Udaipur.
3. Gajendra S/o Unkarraj Gurjar, Resident Of Kasaron Ki Oal,
Jagdish Chowk At Present Residing At Dhabai House,
Dewali, Goverdhan Vilas, Opposite Police Station, Tehsil
Girwa, District Udaipur.
4. State Of Rajasthan, Through District Collector, Udaipur
5. Tehsildar, Girwa, District Udaipur
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr Vijay Purohit (through VC)
For Respondent(s) : None present
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
Judgment / Order
07/01/2021
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner being
aggrieved with the judgment dated 04.03.2020 passed by the
Board of Revenue, Ajmer, whereby the second appeal preferred by
(2 of 5) [CW-7487/2020]
the petitioner under Section 224 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act,
1955 (for short 'the Act of 1955' hereinafter) has been dismissed.
The second appeal was preferred by the petitioner against the
judgment and decree dated 17.08.2012 passed by the Revenue
Appellate Authority, Udaipur (for short 'the RAA' hereinafter) in
appeal No.54/2012. The petitioner has also challenged the order
dated 17.08.2012 in this writ petition.
Brief facts of the case are that respondent Nos. 1 to 3
preferred a suit before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Girwa, District
Udaipur (for short 'the trial court' hereinafter) for declaration and
permanent injunction under Sections 88 and 188 of the Act of
1955 stating that their predecessor Meghraj was having 20 bighas
of khatedari land of Araji Nos. 604, 606, 609, 615, 622 and 624/3
and the same was recorded in the revenue record as such. Out of
20 bighas of land, Meghraj had sold 16 bighas of land to one
Mohan Lal through registered sale-deed and Mohan Lal was
recorded as co-tenant having 4/5th share in the said land. It is
further stated that the said 20 bighas of land of Khasra Nos. 604,
606, 609, 615, 622 and 624/3 was renumbered in new Araji Nos.
1830, 1831, 1832, 1833, 1834, 1835 and 1847. It is further
stated that the land situated in Araji Nos. 1830 to 1835 has been
recorded as private land, whereas the land of Araji No.1847 has
been recorded as Bilanaam. The land of Khasra No. 1847 was
recorded in the name of Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur (for
short 'the UIT' hereinafter) by the order of the District Collector
dated 15.04.1989 and mutation of the same was also recorded on
27.05.1989. It was alleged that 4 bighas of the land, which was
recorded as khatedari of private persons, was included in the Araji
No.1847, which was recorded in the name of UIT in the year 1987.
(3 of 5) [CW-7487/2020]
It was asserted that 4.3212 hectares of land was to be recorded in
the private khatedari of the persons but only 3.4500 hectares of
the land was recorded and as such in the new measurement
0.8712 hectares of land was not recorded. It was alleged that the
said 4 bighas of land, which is equal to 0.8712 hectares was
included in Araji No.1847, which was recorded in the khatedari of
UIT.
Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 sought declaration that the said
4 bighas of land be recorded in their khatedari and be excluded
from khatedari of UIT. It is further prayed that permanent
injunction be issued in their favour and against the UIT and they
may not be dispossessed from the land in question.
The trial court vide judgment dated 29.02.2012
dismissed the said suit while observing that respondent Nos.1 to 3
have failed to prove that they are in possession of 0.8712 hectare
of the lands and, therefore, they are not entitled to get any relief
through the suit.
Being aggrieved with the judgment dated 29.02.2012,
the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 preferred a first appeal in the court of
RAA and the RAA vide impugned judgment dated 17.08.2012
decreed the suit while taking into consideration the fact that in the
Mauka Report, procured by the court, it was found that 4 bighas of
the land has wrongly been included in Araji No.1847, which was
allotted to the UIT. The RAA has placed reliance on the said Mauka
Report, which was prepared in the presence of the parties
concerned and which suggests that the 4 bighas of the khatedari
land of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have wrongly been included in
Araji No.1847. The RAA has also compared the measurement of
the old Araji and new Araji numbers and come to the conclusion
(4 of 5) [CW-7487/2020]
that 4 bighas of the land has wrongly been excluded from the
share of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and has wrongly been included in
the Araji No.1847, which was recorded in the name of UIT. While
recording this finding, the RAA has also placed reliance on the
judgment passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 30.07.2007
(Exhibit-9) in earlier proceedings, wherein, it has held that 4
bighas of the land has wrongly been included in Araji No.1847.
Being aggrieved with the same, the petitioner preferred
second appeal, which came to be dismissed by the Board of
Revenue. Hence, this writ petition.
Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
having gone through the material available on record, I do not find
any illegality in the orders passed by the Board of Revenue as well
as the RAA because the RAA has decreed the suit on the basis of
the Mauka Report prepared in the presence of officials of the UIT,
which clearly suggests that 4 bighas of the khatedari land of the
respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have wrongly been included in Araji
No.1847, which was later on recorded in the name of UIT by the
order of the District Collector.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to convince
this Court that the 4 bighas of the land of the respondent Nos.1 to
3 have not been included in the Araji No.1847. The RAA as well as
the Board of Revenue have discussed the evidence available on
record in detail and thereafter held that the 4 bighas of the land
wrongly included in Araji No.1847 be recorded in the khatedari of
respondent Nos. 1 to 3. The concurrent finding arrived at by the
learned RAA and the Board of Revenue is not liable to be
interfered with.
(5 of 5) [CW-7487/2020]
Hence, there is no force in this writ petition and the
same is hereby dismissed.
Stay petition also stands dismissed.
(VIJAY BISHNOI),J
masif/-PS
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
