Ajmer Development Authority vs Smt. Swarupi W/O Late Shri Choga
2022 Latest Caselaw 4951 Raj/2

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

              S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 22780/2018

Ajmer Development Authority, Through Its Secretary, Todermal
Marg, Civil Line, Ajmer.
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                   Versus
1.     Smt. Swarupi W/o Late Shri Choga, Resident Of Village-
       Kankroda Bhunabaay, Tehsil And Distt. Ajmer Through
       Their Power Of Attorney Shri Kishan Lal S/o Shri Onkar
       Mal, Resident Of Village- Kankroda Bhunabaay, Tehsil And
       Distt. Ajmer
2.     Onkar Mal S/o Late Shri Choga, Resident Of Village-
       Kankroda Bhunabaay, Tehsil And Distt. Ajmer Through
       Their Power Of Attorney Shri Kishan Lal S/o Shri Onkar
       Mal, Resident Of Village- Kankroda Bhunabaay, Tehsil And
       Distt. Ajmer
3.     Government Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar District
       Ajmer.
                                                                ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)        :     Ms.Nidhi Mishra
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr.RK Agrawal, Sr. Adv. with
                               Mr.Shubham Kumar - for respondent
                               No.1


         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR
                         Order

20/07/2022

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, challenging

the order dated 30th May, 2018, passed by the Board of Revenue,

Ajmer, whereby the Board of Revenue has upheld the order

passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Ajmer dated 24 th

January, 2011.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that initially, a

revenue suit under Sections 88, 89, 188 & 92A of the Rajasthan

(2 of 7) [CW-22780/2018]

Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of

1955') was filed by the respondents before the Sub-divisional

Officer, Ajmer (for short "the SDO").

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on the

basis of pleadings of the parties, four issues were framed by the

SDO and after considering the entire pleadings and evidence, the

suit filed by the respondents was dismissed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

respondents felt aggrieved against dismissal of the suit vide order

dated 13th December, 2010 and as such, they preferred appeal

before the Revenue Appellate Authority and the Revenue Appellate

Authority, vide its judgment dated 24th January, 2011, allowed the

appeal of the respondents and set-aside the judgment and decree

dated 13th December, 2010 and further, the respondents have

been declared 'Khatedar' of the land bearing Nos.181 & 188 and

further, the petitioner and the State Government were restrained

to create any hindrance in peaceful use of the aforesaid land.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

petitioner - Ajmer Development Authority had felt aggrieved

against the order passed by the Revneue Appellate Authority and

the Board of Revenue, vide order dated 30th May, 2018, has

dismissed the second appeal filed by the petitioner under Section

224 of the Act of 1955.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Board

of Revenue as well as Revenue Appellate Authority, have solely

been guided due to an order/judgment dated 29th June, 2010,

passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority in Appeal

No.119/2010/75.

(3 of 7) [CW-22780/2018]

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the land in

question, in fact, belonged to the State Government and the

District Collector, Ajmer transferred the said land in favour of

Urban Improvement Trust, Ajmer (for short "the UIT") - petitioner,

vide order dated 25th February, 2004.

Learned counsel submitted that though the order dated 25 th

February, 2004 was challenged by the respondents by filing

appeal under Section 75 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act,

1956 (for short "the Act of 1956") and the order dated 25th

February, 2004 was set-aside to the extent of khasra No.188,

however, the said judgment was not having any bearing in the

controversy, which was raised by the respondents by way of filing

the suit.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

Revenue Appellate Authority as well as the Board of Revenue,

have not considered that the land in question, which initially was

owned by the State Government and the State, being title holder

of the land, transferred the land in favour of the UIT and no rights

could have been derived by any person - respondents claiming

themselves to be 'Khatedar'.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the orders

passed by the Board of Revenue and the Revenue Appellate

Authority, submitted that the order dated 29 th June, 2010 is void

abinitio and as such, it did not confer any right in favour of the

respondents to claim declaration in their favour only on account of

the order dated 25th February, 2004, being set-aside.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the

impugned order, passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority did

not look into the other relevant material, which was placed before

(4 of 7) [CW-22780/2018]

it to show that only by virtue of certain revenue entries, I.e,

'Chosala jamabandi' for certain period, the respondents could not

have become 'Khatedar' of the land and the revenue record never

reflected name of the respondents as 'Khatedar' of the land and as

such, both the Courts below have committed illegality in passing

the impugned order.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that

though the order dated 29th June, 2010 was not challenged in any

higher Forum either by the State Government or by the UIT but

the said decision would not confer any title and interest in favour

of the respondents in land bearing khasra No.188 measuring 3

Bigha and 5 Biswa.

Per contra, learned Senior Counsel - Mr.RK Agrawal, assisted

by learned counsel Mr.Shubham Kumar, appearing for the

respondents, submitted that there are concurrent findings, which

have been recorded by the Revenue Appellate Authority and the

Board of Revenue in favour of the respondents and as such, this

Court, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, may not use

the supervisory power to set-aside the findings, which have been

recorded after considering the entire evidence.

Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that

both the Courts below have taken into account the impact of the

order dated 29th June, 2010, whereby the transfer of land, in

favour of the UIT by the District Collector was not found legal and

as such, the order dated 29th June, 2010 has attained finality.

Learned counsel further submitted that it is too late for the

petitioner to raise any question about correctness of the judgment

dated 29th June, 2010, passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority

and further, the petitioner, at no point of time, has raised any

(5 of 7) [CW-22780/2018]

objection of jurisdiction of Revenue Appellate Authority to set-

aside the order dated 25th February, 2004 transferring the land in

favour of the UIT.

Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner as well as the

State Government both have accepted the order dated 29th June,

2010 and once, transfer of the land in favour of the UIT has been

found to be illegal, the natural consequences of conferring

Khatedari rights in favour of the respondents have to follow.

Learned counsel further submitted that the order dated 29 th

June, 2010 was an appealable order and if the aggrieved party

had any grievance against such order, the proper Forum was to file

second appeal under Section 76 of the Act of 1956 and as such,

the petitioner cannot be permitted to question correctness of the

order, which has been passed on 29th June, 2010.

On the merits, learned counsel for the respondents

submitted that apart from correctness of the order dated 29 th

June, 2010 and such order having become final, both the Courts

below have also considered claim of the respondents on merits, as

the revenue entries consistently reflected name of the

respondents and as such, by considering the relevant revenue

record, the Courts below have came to conclusion that neither the

State Government nor the petitioner, i.e., UIT, Ajmer can claim

title or any other right over the disputed land.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel

for the parties and perused the material available on record.

This Court finds that the Revenue Appellate Authority, while

deciding the issue No.1, came to conclusion that revenue record of

the land in question was reflecting name of the respondents and

different 'Chosala Jamabandi', which was produced as evidence

(6 of 7) [CW-22780/2018]

before the Court below reflected that predecessors of the

respondents were also shown to be 'Khatedar' of the land.

This Court further finds that the Revenue Appellate Authority

also recorded its findings that order of the District Collector, Ajmer

dated 25th February, 2004 had wrongly transferred the land in

favour of the petitioner - UIT and order of the District Collector,

Ajmer was put to challenge and the same was accepted by the

Revenue Appellate Authority vide order dated 29th June, 2010

This Court finds that the Revenue Appellate Authority had

considered the said judgment and further, it came to conclusion

that all the documents and evidence, which were produced by the

respondents, clearly showed that the Court of the first instance,

i.e. Sub-divisional Officer, did not look into all these important

aspects and accordingly, findings of the first Court, i.e. Sub-

divisional Officer, was set-aside on issue No.1.

This Court also finds that the order dated 24th January, 2011,

which was passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, was

assailed before the Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue

has also recorded finding that the Court below, i.e. Revenue

Appellate Authority, did not commit any error in allowing appeal of

the respondents.

This Court finds that the Board of Revenue further has

recorded in its order that as far as locus of the Urban

Improvement Trust, Ajmer was concerned, the same authority

could not be treated as aggrieved party and further, on merits

also, the Board of Revenue found that decision of the Revenue

Appellate Authority did not require any interference.

The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the

order dated 29th June, 2010 is void abinitio and on that basis, suit

(7 of 7) [CW-22780/2018]

of the respondents could not have been decreed by the Appellate

Court, suffice it to say by this Court that the order dated 29 th

June, 2010 shows that the State Government as well as the

petitioner - Urban Improvement Trust, Ajmer, both were party

before the Revenue Appellate Authority and nobody had raised

question of jurisdiction before it.

This Court finds that the argument of learned counsel for the

petitioner to question the judgment/order dated 29 th June, 2010,

is too late in the day now and moreover there is no challenge to

the said order in any of the proceedings in this Court or any other

Court, after the order was passed about 12 years back.

The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the

District Collector, Ajmer had all the powers to transfer the land in

favour of Urban Improvement Trust and even if the order has been

passed to set-aside the order dated 25th February, 2004, this Court

can still reverse the findings of the Revenue Appellate Authority,

this Court is afraid to accept the submission of learned counsel for

the petitioner, as the order dated 29 th June, 2010 has never been

questioned in any of the Forums by the petitioner.

Accordingly, this Court finds that the writ petition, which has

been filed for challenging the orders of the Board of Revenue and

the Revenue Appellate Authority, does not require any interference

by this Court. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed.

(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR),J

Preeti Asopa /Ramesh Vaishnav/74

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)