Rajasthan High Court
Ramswaroop vs B O R Ajmer And Ors on 31 January, 2022
Bench: Sameer Jain
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1116/2012
Ramswaroop
----Petitioner
Versus
B O R Ajmer And Ors
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 1237/2012
Ramswaroop
----Petitioner
Versus
Gaurav Goyal And Another
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. B.R. Rana (through VC)
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Akshay Sharma, AGC (through
VC)
Ms. Pallavi Mehta (through VC)
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
Order
31/01/2022
1. One application is filed for impleadment by Bihari Ji Mandi
Vikas Samiti. The same was allowed vide order dated 19.10.2016
to the extent of acting as intervenor only for providing "assistance
to the Court". The matter in hand pertains to a Civil Suit
No.222/1996 filed by the Murti Mandir Shri Bihari Ji Maharaj Vs.
Ram Swaroop and Ors. The said suit was filed under Sections 88,
89 and 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 which was
dismissed on 30.06.2000 by the Assistant Collector, Nadbai.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is
recorded as Khatedar of land in issue for last several decades, yet
on the basis of belated reference, the Board of Revenue, Ajmer
(2 of 4) [CW-1116/2012]
vide its order dated 04.11.2011 has cancelled the mutations
No.286, 287, 876 to 880 and directed that land in question be
restored in the Khatedari of Mandir Bihariji Maharaj and the name
of petitioner be deleted as Khatedar from revenue record. Against
the said order, the present writ petition was filed contesting that
belated reference cannot be restored denying to a recorded
Khatedar the fruits of decree.
3. Vide order dated April, 26 2012, the operation of the
impugned order dated 04.11.2011 was stayed and the parties
were directed to maintain status quo. The matter is quite old
involving dispute inter se between Mandir Bihariji Maharaj and
private petitioner who claims himself to be in possession since
long period of time. The land in question is a fertile land.
4. This Court has on previous occasion, allowed one
impleadment application of Samiti of villagers to the extent, to act
as intervenor as "assistance to the Court".
5. In this background, the intervenor has filed one application
whereby they have submitted that the disputed land is fertile
piece of land wherein no cultivation is taking place since a long
period of time because of the dispute, therefore, during the
pendency of the present writ petition Tehsildar, Nadbai may be
appointed as a receiver under whose supervision the land will be
cultivated under an auction of the disputed land for the purpose of
cultivation and the revenue so generated will be deposited in a
separate bank account, the proceedings of which, after expenses
to be born out on account of agricultural portions, may be
released and paid in favour of successful litigant.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has objected towards
the maintainability of the stay application filed by intervenor
(3 of 4) [CW-1116/2012]
placing reliance upon Order 17 Rule (3) of CPC and Hon'ble Apex
Court judgment titled Ahmedabad St. Xavier's College Society
Vs. State of Gujarat reported in (1974) 1 SCC 717 whereby it
was held that the intervenor's right is to the extent of receiving
the documents and unless directed otherwise by the Court, the
intervenor is not permitted to move any application or plead
before the Tribunal.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent-State Mr. Akshay
Sharma, AGC submits that the proposal of intervenor is just fair
and legitimate and he has no objection to the same as the
application is of general public importance and is in the interest of
the State.
8. We have heard the submissions advanced by all the
respective counsels and this Court is of the opinion that the
judgment relied upon by petitioner Ahmedabad St. Xavier's
College Society (supra) as well as Order 17 Rule 3 grants
discretion to the Court adjudicating the matter for deciding the
right of intervenor. Undoubtedly, the rights of intervenor are
limited to the extent of receiving the documents and making
submission before the Court. But in the case at hand, the
intervenors are Samiti of villagers who have no self interest but it
is their devotion towards the Mandir that they want effective
generation of revenue under supervision of the respondent-State.
9. Looking to the facts of the case and matter pertaining to Civil
Suit No.222/1996 wherein because of the interim order passed in
the year 2012 no agricultural operations are carried out on the
fertile piece of land which for long is unutilized, in such a case
agricultural operations are permitted on the fertile land, under
supervision of Tehsildar, Nadbai who is a public servant.
(4 of 4) [CW-1116/2012]
10. As submitted in the application, the receiver will not only
supervise the effective agricultural operations to be carried out by
the petitioner on the land but also see that the produce is
auctioned in the best interest of all the parties and the revenue
realized is deposited in a bank. Out of the said proceeds, the
Tehsildar, Nadbai will ensure that due disbursement is paid to the
petitioners on account of expenses towards the agricultural
operations.
11. The application for appointment of Tehsildar, Nadbai, District
Bharatpur is allowed as prayed in application in the light of above
observations.
12. List the matter on 31.03.2022.
(SAMEER JAIN),J
Arun/3-4
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
