Bhalla vs Ganga Ram And Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 1644 Raj

[2023/RJJD/001984]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1815/2016

Bhalla

----Petitioner Versus Ganga Ram And Ors.

                                                                       ----Respondent


For Petitioner              :    Mr. Teja Ram Chowdhary
For Respondents             :    Mr. Varun Goyal



               HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI

                                  Judgment

Reserved on 23/01/2023
Pronounced on 10/02/2023

1. This Civil Writ Petition has been preferred against; the order

dated 08.03.2013 (at Annex-21) passed by the Additional

Collector, Sanchore, the judgment dated 01.05.2015 (Annex-22)

passed by the learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Pali and the

judgment dated 14.01.2016 (at Annex-24) passed by the learned

Board of Revenue.

2. The controversy in the present case pertains to a parcel of

land situated in purana khasra no. 310 and naya khasra no.135

rakba 18 biswa in village-Veerava, Gram Panchayat-Koriya, Tehsil-

Sanchore, District-Jalore.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said

parcel of land has been in his family's cultivatory possession for

generations. And that on the basis of such possession, the said

parcel of land was allotted in the favour of the petitioner by the

[2023/RJJD/001984] (2 of 6) [CW-1815/2016]

Allotment Committee vide allotment order dated 26.06.1965 (at

Annex-3), but owing to an error in the order, in place of khasra no.

310, khasra no. 298/8 rakba 14 bigha 10 biswa was mentioned.

And that on the basis of such incorrect recording of the khasra

number, the milaan kshetraphal was also incorrectly created (at

Annex-4).

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in the

entries made in the revenue record (at Annex-5) for the khasra

no. 310/7, the name was incorrectly mentioned as Veerma s/o

Bhoma, and that upon the name Bhoma the name of Chopa was

overwritten, whereas it should have been mentioned as Bhalla S/o

Bhoma.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner thus submits that in the

aforesaid factual backdrop, Veerma was incorrectly declared as the

gair khatedaar of the land in question vide the allotment order

dated 26.06.1965; on the basis of which transfer of name

(namantakaran) (at Annex-6) was done, and Veerma was

subsequently declared as the khatedaar of the land situated at

khasra no. 350 rakba 18 bighas whereas the petitioner has had

continuous cultivatory possession over the land in question.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that as per

the fard puch taach (Annex-16) and the mauka fard (Annex-17),

the elders of village-Veerava, and others persons stated that no

such person named Veeram S/o Chopa ever resided in that village.

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents

opposes the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners and

[2023/RJJD/001984] (3 of 6) [CW-1815/2016]

submitted that the learned Revenue Authorities have after

appreciating the evidences on the record and upon looking into

the overall facts and circumstances of the present case rightly

passed the impugned orders.

8. Heard. Perused the record of the case.

9. This Court observes that a suit was preferred on behalf of

the present petitioner-Bhalla S/o Bhoma by his wife-Dhani, before

the Additional Collector, Sanchore in Revenue Case No. 37/2004

which was decided vide order dated 21.01.2006; the petitioner's

wife sought to impress upon the learned Revenue Court that she

was the sister of Veerma S/o Chopa @ Sarupa and that he had

taken up sainthood and could not be located, that he was

issueless and had subsequently died and that therefore the land in

question, recorded in the name of Veerma, be mutated in her

name. The learned Revenue Court dismissed her suit with the

finding that other than her own testimony and the testimony of

three other witnesses, there was no document or record showing

her relation to Veerma, nor anything to suggest that he had died.

And that under the provisions of law contained in the Rajasthan

Tenancy Act, 1955 such land would vest with the State

Government.

10. This Court further observes that the land in question came to

be sold by Veerma S/o Chopa to the private respondents-

Gangaram and Kesaram by way of a registered sale deed dated

28.12.2007 (at Annex-12) against which a complaint (at Annex-

13) was lodged by one-Bhalarag S/o Bhogaji and pursuant

[2023/RJJD/001984] (4 of 6) [CW-1815/2016]

thereto an F.I.R. bearing No. 08/2008 dated 01.02.2008 was

lodghed at Police Station-Chitalwana, District Jalore against

Veerma, Kesaram, Gangaram, Vabhutaram and Shaitansingh. The

said FIR was challenged before this Court and was quashed vide

order dated 02.03.2009 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.

225/2008 and that instead of exhausting the remedy of

revision/appeal against order dated 21.01.2006, the FIR was

lodged as an abuse of the process of law.

11. This Court further observes that a shudhi abhilekh i.e.

correction record deed dated 23.01.2008 (at Annex.18) was also

entered into between Veerma and the private respondents.

12. This Court thus finds that Veerma S/o Chopa @ Sarupa has

entered into two registered agreements, the first being a

registered sale deed and the second a correction record deed,

against whom an FIR came to be filed and who had duly contested

the FIR by way of filing a petition, being S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition

No.225/2008 decided on 02.03.2009, and was made party to the

said petition before this Court on a previous occasion. Thus, by

any means it cannot be inferred/said that Veerma S/o Chopa @

Sarupa was a fictitious person.

13. This Court also observes that the suit preferred by the

private respondents before the Additional Collector, Sanchore for

declaration of khatedaari rights of the land in question and

mutation of entries in the revenue record, the learned Revenue

Court upon a consideration of the material on record, found that

the registered sale deed dated 28.12.2007 states Veerma s/o

[2023/RJJD/001984] (5 of 6) [CW-1815/2016]

Chopa and the same was also mentioned in the jamabandi of the

land in question, and therefore, ruled in favour of the private

respondents.

14. This Court further observes that the present petitioner

preferred an appeal before the learned Revenue Appellate

Authority, Pali which came to be dismissed vide order dated

01.05.2015 whereby it was held that the present petitioner was

unable to prove possession over the land in question and that the

khatedaari rights of the land in question were duly vested with the

private respondents vide the aforementioned sale deed, and the

suit before the Additional Collector, Sanchore as such was

preferred for mutation/correction in the revenue record by the

private respondents.

15. This Court also observes that the present petitioner then

preferred an appeal against the order of the learned R.A.A. before

the learned Board of Revenue, Ajmer which also came to be

dismissed vide order dated 14.01.2016, after taking into

consideration the materials available on record and specifically the

aforementioned FIR lodged against Veerma and the private

respondents.

16. This Court finds, in light of the observations made

hereinabove, that the present petition is without merit and is

hereby dismissed. Accordingly, the present stay application also

stands dismissed.

(DR.NUPUR BHATI),J 96-Sanjay/-

[2023/RJJD/001984] (6 of 6) [CW-1815/2016]

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)