Rajasthan High Court
Union Of India vs Smt. Anju Bhargava Wife Of Late ... on 1 November, 2022
Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14457/2020
Union Of India, Through Secretary, Government Of India,
Ministry Of Finance, South Block, New Delhi.
----Petitioner-Defendant
Versus
1. Smt. Anju Bhargava Wife Of Late Shri Akhilesh Kumar
Bhargava, Resident Of B-201, Bhragu Apartments, Plot
No.4, Sector-9, Dwarka, New Delhi.
2. Kumari Shivangi Daughter Of Late Shri Akhilesh Kumar
Bhargava, Resident Of B-201, Bhragu Apartments, Plot
No.4, Sector-9, Dwarka, New Delhi.
3. Smt. Aakanksha Daughter Of Late Shri Akhilesh Kumar
Bhargava, Resident Of B-201, Bhragu Apartments, Plot
No.4, Sector-9, Dwarka, New Delhi.
4. Ram Dutt Son Of Tikaram, Resident Of Katra Jharuwa,
Tehsil And District Agra Through Power Of Attorney Holder
Smt. Anju Bhargava Wife Of Late Shri Akhilesh Kumar
Bhargava, Resident Of B-201, Bhragu Apartments, Plot
No.4, Sector-9, Dwarka, New Delhi.
5. Smt. Rajkumari Wife Of Jawahar Lal, Resident Of
Khairthal At Present Residing At House No. 5 (Ka), 169-
170, Shiwaji Park, Alwar Through Power Of Attorney
Holder Smt. Anju Bhargava Wife Of Late Shri Akhilesh
Kumar Bhargava, Resident Of B-201, Bhragu Apartments,
Plot No.4, Sector-9, Dwarka, New Delhi.
6. Shri Dinesh Bhargava Son Of Shri Laxminarayan,
Resident Of House No. 593, Scheme No.10, Vivek Vihar,
Alwar
Respondents-Plaintiffs
7. State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar, Alwar, District
Alwar (Raj.)
8. Urban Improvement Trust, Through Its Secretary, Alwar,
District Alwar, Rajasthan
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anand Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Vaibhav Bhargava
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Order
01/11/2022
(2 of 5) [CW-14457/2020]
On 13.10.2022, learned counsel for the petitioner sought
time to seek instructions after arguing at length.
Today, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has
instructions to argue the case on merit.
This writ petition has been filed assailing the legality and
validity of the judgment and decree dated 20.08.2020 passed by
the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer (for brevity "the BoR") in
Appeal No.2720/2020 whereby, the appeal preferred by the
petitioner against the judgment and decree dated 18.02.2020
passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Alwar (hereinafter
referred to as "the RAA") in Appeal No.18/2019 preferred against
the judgment and decree dated 03.06.2019 passed by the Court
of Sub-Divisional Officer, Alwar (for short "the learned trial Court")
in Case No.185/2014 decreeing the revenue suit filed by the
respondents under Sections 88, 183 & 188 of the Rajasthan
Tenancy Act, 1955 (for brevity "the Act of 1955"), has been
dismissed.
The relevant facts in brief are that the respondents No.1 to
6/plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiffs") filed a
revenue suit under Sections 88, 183 & 188 of the Act of 1955
against the petitioner/defendant No.1 and the respondents No.7 &
8/defendants No.2 & 3 stating therein that they are Khatedars of
Khasra No.1728 measuring 73 aer, village Alwar No.1, Tehsil &
District Alwar. It was averred that they were in possession of 37
aer of land only and rest 36 aer of land towards western side, was
used by the UIT, Alwar for construction of roads without
acquisition and on their objection, they were allotted 40 per cent
developed land by the UIT, Alwar in Vijaynagar Scheme in lieu of
36 aer of land. It was alleged that 37 aer land of Khasra No.1728
(3 of 5) [CW-14457/2020]
was encroached upon by the petitioner/defendant No.1 (for short
"the defendant No.1") in the year 2003. Therefore, a decree of
declaration, permanent injunction and dispossession was prayed
for.
The defendant No.1 in its written statement submitted that it
is in possession of the land of Khasra No.1706 which the plaintiffs
were erroneously claiming to be part of land of Khasra No.1728. It
was admitted in the reply that it has no concern with the 37 aer
land of Khasra No.1728.
The suit was partly decreed by the learned trial Court vide its
judgment and decree dated 27.01.2017 which came to be assailed
by the plaintiffs as also by the defendant No.1 by way of separate
appeals which were partly allowed by the RAA in Appeal
No.2/2014 vide judgment dated 02.12.2014 whereby, while
setting aside the judgment and decree dated 27.01.2014, the
matter was remanded back to the learned trial Court to decide it
afresh. After remand, the learned trial Court, vide its judgment
dated 03.06.2019, decreed the suit and declared the plaintiffs as
Khatedars of the land of Khasra No.1728, the defendant No.1 was
injuncted not to interfere with use and occupation of the subject
land by the plaintiffs and the defendant No.2, the Tehsildar, Alwar
was directed to restore possession of 37 aer land of Khasra
No.1728 to the plaintiffs and to carry out necessary corrections in
the revenue record. The judgment and decree dated 03.06.2019
were unsuccessfully challenged by the defendant No.1 by way of
an Appeal No.18/2019 which came be to be dismissed by the RAA
vide its judgment dated 18.02.2020 which has been affirmed by
the BoR vide its judgment and decree dated 20.08.2020.
(4 of 5) [CW-14457/2020]
Assailing the judgment and decree dated 20.08.2020,
placing reliance upon Section 111 of the Act of 1955, the only
contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is
that since, it is in possession of the land of Khasra No.1706, the
revenue authorities may be directed to demarcate the land of
Khasra No.1706 also along with demarcation of land of Khasra
No.1728. He, therefore, prays that the judgment and decree may
be modified accordingly.
Per contra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
respondent No.6/caveator would submit that the scope of this writ
petition, being directed against the judgment and decree passed
by the revenue Courts, is confined to examine and adjudge their
validity only and no such direction, which is in the nature of a writ
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can be passed by
this Court. He submits that in view of admitted position that the
plaintiffs are Khatedars of the land of Khasra No.1728 with which
the petitioner has no concern, no interference by this Court is
warranted in the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the three
revenue Courts. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the writ
petition.
Heard. Considered.
There is no challenge to the concurrent findings recorded by
the revenue Courts that the respondents No.1 to 6/plaintiffs are
Khatedars of land of Khasra No.1728 measuring 37 aer as on date
and are entitled for restoration of its possession after demarcation
by the revenue authorities. In view thereof, no interference is
warranted by this Court in the concurrent finding of facts recorded
by the revenue Courts, which otherwise also are not under
challenge before this Court.
(5 of 5) [CW-14457/2020]
Insofar as, the contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the revenue authorities may be directed to
demarcate the land of Khasra No.1706 also along with
demarcation of land of Khasra No.1728, this Court finds
substantial force in the submission of learned Senior Counsel for
the respondent No.6/caveator that since this writ petition arises
out of judgment and decree passed by the revenue Courts, no
such direction can be issued by this Court under its limited
jurisdiction. Even otherwise also, in absence of any such counter
claim by the petitioner, no such relief can be granted. However,
the petitioner is always at liberty to invoke the jurisdiction of the
revenue authorities under the Act of 1955 if it wants demarcation
of land under its possession.
Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed being devoid of
merit.
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J
Manish/49
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
