Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Babulal Jain And Anr vs Board Of Revenue,Raj.Ajmer And ... on 27 September, 2022
Bench: Vijay Bishnoi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16762/2017
1. Babulal Jain S/o Sh. Lumbchand, By Caste Parmar Jain,
Resident Of Intdara Medatiyan, Presently President, Shri
Jai Jinendra Sangh, Mumbai.
2. Nirmal Kumar S/o Sh. Vaktawarmal, By Caste Jain
Sancheti, Resident Of Pachediya, Tehsil Marwar Junction,
District Pali, Presently Treasurer, Shri Jai Jinendra Sangh,
Mumbai Presently Residing At Society Store Meman
Building, Near Jigna Apartment, M. Joshi Marg, Dhelisale
Lower Parel, East, Mumbai- 13.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Board Of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer Through Its
Registrar.
2. Vijayraj M. Parmar S/o Sh. Multanmal, Resident Of
Intdara Medatiyan, Tehsil Desuri, Presently Rani, District
Pali Address Uramwala Building, First Floor, Ambedkar
Road, Parel, Mumbai- 12.
3. Smt. Kanchan B. Parmar D/o Sh. Multanmal, Resident Of
Intdara Medatiyan, Tehsil Desuri, Presently Rani, District
Pali.address Uramwala Building, First Floor, Ambedkar
Road, Parel, Mumbai- 12
4. State Of Rajasthan, Through Teshildar, Rani, District Pali.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. B. S. Sandhu
Mr. S. K. Shreemali
For Respondent(s) : Mr. J. L. Purohit, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Sajjan Singh
Mr. Shashank Joshi
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
Order
27/09/2022
This writ petition is filed by the petitioners being aggrieved
with the order dated 14.11.2017 passed by the Board of Revenue,
(2 of 4) [CW-16762/2017]
Ajmer (hereinafter to be referred as 'the BoR'), whereby the
appeal preferred by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 has been allowed
and the judgment passed by the Additional Divisional
Commissioner, Jodhpur dated 20.01.2017 has been set aside and
the order dated 30.03.2016 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer,
Rani, District Pali (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Land Record
Officer') has been affirmed.
The petitioners have filed an application under Section 136 of
the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (hereinafter to be referred
as 'the LR Act') claiming that 5.12 hectares of land situated in
village Somesar (Bussi) was recorded in the name of one Sampat
Ram Bohra and out of the said land, 1 hectare was gifted to the
petitioners by him in the year 1991. The said land was later on
converted from agricultural to non-agricultural purpose and with
respect of the same, the Tehsildar, Desuri has passed a conversion
order of land of the petitioners which was situated in Khasra
No.58/92.
It is claimed that in relation to the said transaction, a map
was prepared and the land of the petitioners measuring about 1
hectare was demarcated. It is further claimed by the petitioners
that later on, the remaining 4.12 hectares of land was alienated to
the respondent Nos.2 and 3 by Sampat Raj Bohra and the same
was recorded in their name. It is further contended that while
making the demarcation of 4.12 hectares of land, it has been
shown in the portions of the petitioners' land in the map and,
therefore, a correction be made in the map and the same be
restored to its original position.
The said application came to be dismissed by the Land
Record Officer vide order dated 30.03.2016 while observing that
(3 of 4) [CW-16762/2017]
the application for correction of map is not maintainable under
Section 136 of the LR Act.
Being aggrieved with the same, the petitioners have
preferred an appeal before the Additional Divisional Commissioner,
Jodhpur and the same has been allowed vide judgment dated
20.01.2017 while observing that though the application filed by
the petitioners under Section 136 of the LR Act is not
maintainable, but the same can be entertained under Section 131
of the LR Act. The Additional Divisional Commissioner was of the
view that wrong mentioning of a provision of law cannot be a
reason for dismissal of the application. The Additional Divisional
Commissioner has, therefore, remanded the matter to the Land
Record Officer with a direction to consider and decide the same
while treating it as an application under Section 131 of the LR Act.
The Additional Divisional Commissioner has also given certain
directions which required to be followed by the Land Record
Officer while deciding the application of the petitioners.
Being aggrieved with the same, the respondent Nos.2 and 3
have preferred a second appeal before the BoR, which came to be
allowed by the impugned order.
Heard learned counsel for the parties at length.
Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the
case, this Court is of the opinion that essentially the application
was filed by the petitioners seeking correction in the map and not
for any correction in the record of the rights. The application was
preferred under Section 136 of the LR Act, which specifically deals
with correction of errors in the record of rights or registry, as
such, the Land Record Officer as well as the BoR have rightly
observed that the application seeking correction in the map filed
(4 of 4) [CW-16762/2017]
by the petitioners is not maintainable under Section 136 of the LR
Act, however, this Court is of the opinion that the Additional
Divisional Commissioner vide judgment dated 20.01.2017 has
rightly observed that the said application filed by the petitioners
was though not maintainable under Section 136 of the LR Act, but
the same was maintainable under Section 131 of the LR Act.
Hence, the Additional Divisional Commissioner has rightly
remanded the matter to the Land Record Officer to consider and
decide the application while treating it as under Section 131 of the
LR Act.
Taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances
of the case, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order
dated 14.11.2017 passed by the BoR is set aside and the
judgment dated 20.1.2017 passed by the Additional Divisional
Commissioner, Jodhpur is hereby confirmed.
Since the application seeking correction in the map was filed
by the petitioners way back in the year 2013, it is expected that
the Land Record Officer shall consider and decide the same in
accordance with the directions given by the Additional Divisional
Commissioner, Jodhpur expeditiously strictly in accordance with
law, preferably within a period of six months from the date of
production of certified copy of this order.
Needless to say that the parties concerned are free to raise
permissible objections before the Land Record Officer.
Stay petition is disposed of.
(VIJAY BISHNOI),J
18-AjaySingh/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
