Ramdhan Son Of Shri Dharu vs Parbhati Son Of Shri Ramsukha
2022 Latest Caselaw 2318 Raj/2

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                     BENCH AT JAIPUR

                 D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 965/2021

                                         In

                 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3793/2021


   1.     Ramdhan Son Of Shri Dharu, Aged About 71 Years,
          Resident Of Gram Khauhra Chauhan, Tehsil Rajgarh,
          District Alwar.
   2.     Chotkaya @ Chotelal Son Of Dharu, Aged About 68 Years,
          Resident Of Gram Khauhra Chauhan, Tehsil Rajgarh,
          District Alwar.
                                                                    ----Appellants

                                     Versus

   1.     Parbhati Son Of Shri Ramsukha, Resident Of Khauhra
          Chauhan, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Alwar.
   2.     Mulya Son Of Dharu, Resident Of Gram Khauhra Chauhan,
          Tehsil Rajgarh, District Alwar (Raj.)

                                                                  ----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Kuldeep Aswal, Advocate

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

Judgment / Order

14/03/2022

Heard.

This appeal arises out of order dated 13.08.2021 passed by

the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the

appellants seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari as also praying

(2 of 3) [SAW-965/2021]

for invoking supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India.

Learned counsel for the appellants would argue that while

the first authority properly appreciated the oral and documentary

evidence on record in favour of the appellants because at the time

when the application was filed, the names of the appellants were

recorded in the revenue record, first and second appellate

authority as also the learned Single Judge have adopted palpably

erroneous approach, impermissible in law, that it was for the

appellants to discloses as to under what authority their names

were recorded.

We have gone through the order passed by the revenue

authorities as also order passed by the learned Single Judge.

The orders passed by all the authorities including the

authority at the first instance clearly reveal that the names of the

respondents and their forefathers were being recorded as

khatedars since long and all of a sudden there was a change in the

entries. That led to filing of a suit by the earlier recorded

khatedars. While the authority at the first instance passed an

order in favour of the appellants only on the basis of the entries

made in their favour, the first and second appellate authority

examined the records and held in favour of the erstwhile recorded

owners-khatedars on the basis that once their names were being

recorded as khatedars since long, the burden was on the

appellants to prove as to on what valid authority earlier names

were struck off and their names were recorded. As the appellants

failed to lead any oral and documentary evidence to support their

case, the appellate authority held against the appellants.

(3 of 3) [SAW-965/2021]

Learned Single Judge looking to this aspect dismissed the

writ petition.

The approach, which has been adopted by the courts below,

does not appear to be erroneous in law. The orders do not appear

to be either in excess of jurisdiction, nor it is a case of illegality or

irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction. In the absence of

violation of any statutory provision in the matter of determination

of the dispute of the parties, writ of certiorari could not issued and

the same has rightly been denied by learned Single Judge.

Appeal is accordingly dismissed.

(SAMEER JAIN),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),ACTING CJ

Mohita /4

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)