Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

State Of Raj vs Ratanlal And Ors on 3 November, 2023

Bench: Nupur Bhati

[2023:RJ-JD:36155]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6340/2010 The State Of Rajasthan through the Tehsildar, Girwa, District Udaipur.

----Petitioner Versus

1. Ratanlal S/o Shri Hema

2. Bhagwanlal S/o Shri Bherulal

3. Devilal S/o Shri Beniram All residents of Sobhagpura, Tehsil Girwa, District Udaipur.

4. Shri Charbhuja Ji Sthan Deh through its Pujari Narayanlal S/o Shri Ratanlal Dangi, R/o Shobaghpura, Tehsil Girwa, District Udaipur.

5. The Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur.

6. The Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer.

7. M/s Perfect Future Developers Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur through its Director Shri Heeralal Jain s/o Sh. Sohanlal Jain, R/o 5-B, Shivaji Nagar, Udaipur.

                                                                              ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)                  :     Mr. R.D. Bhadu, GC
For Respondent(s)                  :     Mr. Sajjan Singh Rajpurohit
                                         Mr. Manish Bhunwal



                  HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI

                                          Judgment
Judgment Reserved on                              <>                        18.10.2023
Date of Pronouncement                             <>                        03.11.2023

1. The matter has been listed in the category of 'orders'. With

the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard

finally.

2. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 and

227 of the Constitution of India with the following prayer:-

"1. The judgment and decree dt.8-11-2006 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur (Annex.6), as also, the judgment dt.12-9-2008 passed by the

(D.B. SAW/426/2020 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)

[2023:RJ-JD:36155] (2 of 8) [CW-6340/2010]

learned Board of Revenue (Annex.8) may very kindly be quashed and set aside with all their natural consequences;

2. The judgment and decree dt.8-6-2006 (Annex.4) passed by the learned Sub Divisional Officer, Girwa may very kindly be upheld and maintained with all its natural consequences; and

3. Any other relief/reliefs which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted in favour of the petitioner."

3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent Shri

Bhagwanlal and others filed a suit under Section 88 and 188 of the

Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter the Act of 1955) before

the Sub Divisional Officer, Girwa, District Udaipur for correction in

revenue entries and for entering their names in the revenue

record as Khatedars of the land in question while submitting that

the respondents were having the Khatedari rights of the land

situated in Khasra No.315 admeasuring 0.5700 hectors, land

situated at Khasra No.316 admeasuring 0.1000 hectors, land

situated at Khasra No.318 admeasuring 0.4000 hectors and land

situated at Khasra No.319 admeasuring 0.0200 hectors in Village

Shobhagpura, Tehsil Girwa, District Udaipur. The petitioner-

defendant and defendant No.2 filed written statement in the suit

and denied the averments made therein. The SDO, Girwa District

Udaipur framed four issues for adjudication of the suit filed before

it. The SDO Girwa, District Udaipur dismissed the suit filed by the

plaintiff-respondents vide judgment and decree dated 08.06.2006

(Annexure-4). The plaintiff respondents being aggrieved of the

(D.B. SAW/426/2020 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)

[2023:RJ-JD:36155] (3 of 8) [CW-6340/2010]

judgment and decree dated 08.06.2006 filed an appeal before the

Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur and vide judgment dated

08.11.2006 (Annexure-6), the Revenue Appellate Authority,

Udaipur allowed the appeal filed by the plaintiff-respondents. The

petitioner being aggrieved of the judgment and decree dated

08.11.2006 (Annexure-6) preferred an appeal before the Board of

Revenue, Ajmer under Section 224 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act

and the Board of Revenue, Ajmer vide order dated 12.09.2008

(Annexure-8) dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner.

The petitioner being aggrieved of the same, has preferred the

present writ petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur and Board of Revenue,

Ajmer failed to appreciate the fact that the acquisition of

Khatedari right in favour of the plaintiff-respondents with respect

to land which is recorded in the name of "Raghunath Dwara" is in

violation of mandatory provision of Section 16 and 46 of the Act of

1955 and the entry of Khatedari rights as directed in the name of

plaintiff-respondents is misreading and non-reading of material

available on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner also

submitted that upon perusal of Annexure-1 i.e. copies of

Jamabandies it is reflected that the State of Mewar in the Samvat

1987 had recorded the rights in the name of "Shri Charbhuja Ji

Sthan Deh" as Khatedar of the land in question and Shri Nanudas

S/o Shri Lichmanram was recorded as 'Pujari' of the land in

question. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that

Section 46 of the Act of 1955 provides exemption in case of a

(D.B. SAW/426/2020 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)

[2023:RJ-JD:36155] (4 of 8) [CW-6340/2010]

minor in exceptional cases and a person incapable of cultivating

his holding by reason of physical disability or infirmity. He also

submitted that idol/deity falls to both the classes i.e. a minor as

well as the physical disabled or infirm person and the manager or

the State is under an obligation to protect the interest of such a

minor or disabled person. Learned counsel for the petitioner also

submitted that the Revenue Appellate Authority and the Board of

Revenue had not appreciated the fact that the revenue as well as

the Administrative Authorities have a legal obligation to protect

the interest and right of property of the temple on the their lands.

He also submitted that the cultivator can act as a guardian or

deity (minor) but he cannot be permitted to usurp over the rights

and interests of such minor or disabled person. Learned counsel

for the petitioner also submitted that the Board of Revenue has

failed to appreciate that once the temple has been shown as a

Khatedar of the land in Samvat 1987, there can be no justification

in recognising any entry or transaction to the contrary.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted

that it is apparent that the name of cultivator was recorded as

Chokha S/o Shri Kewal Dangi resident of Sakin Bahak

(Khadamdar) and in Column No.4, the Khasra No.245 had been

shown and in Column No.3 the name of Khema was also shown.

He further submitted that Nanudas was also granted the right of

Khadamdari for the land in Khasra No.141, 142, 267, 268, 269

and 271 by the then State (Jagirdar) vide Patta dated 11.05.54.

He also submitted that the Maufi land was cultivated by the said

Nanu as Khadamdar and as such in Samvat 2017 to 2020 in

(D.B. SAW/426/2020 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)

[2023:RJ-JD:36155] (5 of 8) [CW-6340/2010]

revenue record, the jamabandi shows the name of Nanudas

recorded as Khadamdar. Learned counsel for the respondents

placed reliance upon Section 38 of the Kanunmal Mewar Act in

which it has been specifically laid down that the Khadamdar

has been given a right of heritance and right to transfer, gift,

mortgage and bequeath of such land in question. He also

submitted that as per the provisions of law, the Khadamdar was

treated as Khudkasat Khatedar and thus, the respondents

acquired Khatedari rights in pursuance of Rajasthan Tenency Act,

1955. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that

the Board of Revenue has rightly held that the respondent No.1 to

3 submitted the jamabandi of the year 2017 to 2020 in which the

earlier seller was recorded as Khadamdar and thereafter in the

Jamabandi Samvat 2021 to 2024, Samvat 2025 to 2028 and

Samvat 2029 to 2032 the father of respondents No.1, 2 and 3 has

been shown as Khatedar of the said land in question. Learned

counsel for the respondents also placed reliance upon the

judgment dated 29.05.2020 passed by a Division Bench of this

Court in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.650/2018.

6. This Court, finds that the Board of Revenue, Ajmer after duly

examining the facts and the record available before it has given a

finding that the possession of the property in dispute was with the

previous seller who sold the property to the father of the

respondent No.1, 2, 3. The Board of Revenue has further given a

finding that Nanudas by way of registered sale deed sold off the

land in dispute and also handed over the possession of the said

property to the father of respondent No.1, 2, 3 and since then, the

(D.B. SAW/426/2020 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)

[2023:RJ-JD:36155] (6 of 8) [CW-6340/2010]

possession is with them. The Board of Revenue also observed that

in connection with this, Jagirdar Bedla had also given the rights of

Khadam through the lease issued by him in the year 1954, which

has been presented to the Deputy Collector, Girwa. It has also

been observed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer that even by

looking at the Jamabandis of Samvat 2017 to 2020 it is reflected

that Nanudas the former seller who sold the property in dispute to

the father of respondent No.1, 2 and 3 was recorded as

Khadamdar of the said land and as soon as the acceptance of

waiver was done and the land was sold to the father of respondent

No.1, 2 and 3 by Nanudas through registered sale deed in 1959

and accordingly they were registered as the Khatedars Kashtkars.

The Board of Revenue, Ajmer has also concluded after perusing

the material available on record that the respondent No.1, 2 and 3

have placed the Jamabandis for the Samvat 2017 to 2020 before

the Deputy Collector, Girwa in which the earlier seller has been

recorded as Khadamdar and in the Jamabandis for the Samvat

2021 to 2024, Jamabandis for the Samvat 2025 to 2028,

Jamabandis for the Samvat 2029 to 2032 were also placed on

record in which it is certified that the father of the respondent

No.1, 2 and 3 was a Khadamdar tenant and continued to be so

uptil Samvat 2041. The Board of Revenue, Ajmer has also given

its finding that the petitioner has not placed any document before

it or before Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur and nor they

have presented any document before the Land Management

Officer and ex-officio Revenue Appeallate Authority, Udaipur in

order to make out their case. In the case of Jodharam and Anr. Vs.

(D.B. SAW/426/2020 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)

[2023:RJ-JD:36155] (7 of 8) [CW-6340/2010]

Board of Revenue, Ajmer & Ors. in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.

6316/2017 decided on 13.10.2017 this Court observed that

when the concurrent findings of all the Courts below are placed on

appreciation and analysis of the evidence on record, the said

findings should not be interfered by the High Court in its exercise

of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

7. Taking into consideration the observation made in the

judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nibaran

Chandra Bag and Ors. Vs. Mahendra Nath Ghughu (AIR 1963 SC

1895) in which it was observed as under:

"... jurisdiction conferred (under Article 227) is not by any means appellate in its nature for correcting errors in the decisions of subordinate courts or tribunals but is merely a power of superintendence to be used to keep them within the bounds of their authority..."

8. This Court, thus observes that there are concurrent findings

of both the Courts below and this Court has got limited power

under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as this Court in its

supervisory jurisdiction cannot sit as an appellate Court

particularly when all the records and documents placed before the

Courts below have been duly examined and appreciated and the

petitioner has failed to place on record any document in order to

establish that the land in question was recorded in the name of

"Charbhuja Ji Sthan Deh" and Shri Nanudas S/o Shri Lichmanram

was recorded as 'Pujari' .

9. In view of the above discussion, it cannot be said that the

Board of Revenue, Ajmer committed any error in passing the