Firm Shri Shiv Rattan Lal Jwala ... vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 16744 Raj

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

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

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.

15. Stay application also stands disposed of.

(DINESH MEHTA),J 39-Rahul/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)