Shambhoo Singh And Ors vs Vijay Singh And Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 9148 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:37490]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                     S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 365/2001

1. Shambhoo Singh S/o Lal Singh expired through his legal
representatives.
    1/1. Jeetthu Singh S/o Shambhu Singh, age 45 years.
    1/2. Mehtabh Singh S/o Shambhu Singh, age 47 years.
    1/3. Kundan Kanwar D/o Shambhu Singh, age 49 years.
    1/4. Rasal Kanwar W/o Shambhu Singh, age 77 years.
2. Bhopal Singh S/o Shambhu Singh, Expired.
    2/1. Indar Singh S/o Bhopal Singh, age 36 years.
    2/2. Dilawar Singh S/o Bhopal Singh, age 30 years.
    2/3. Rasal Kanwar W/o Bhopal Singh, age 61 years.
3. Bahadur Singh S/o Lal Singh.
4. Chandan Singh S/o Lal Singh.
5. Umed Singh S/o Lal Singh.
All are resident of village Balana, Tehsil Bali, District Pali.
                                                                       ----Petitioner
                                        Versus
1. Vijay Singh S/o Kan Singh expired through his legal
representatives:-
    1/1. Niranjan Singh S/o Late Shri Vijay Singh.
    2/2. Govind Singh S/o Late Shri Vijay Singh.
Both are by caste Rajput R/o Village Balana, Tehsil Bali District
Pali at present R/o 44, Shyam Colony, Vashali Nagar, opposite
petrol pump, Ajmer.
2. State of Rajasthan through Secretary, Revenue Department,
Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Additional Collector, Pali.
4. District Collector, Pali.
5. Gram Panchayat, Balana, Panchayat Samiti Sumerpur, Tehsil
Bali, District, Pali
6. Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer.
                                                                     ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)             :     Mr. Sudheer Sharma
For Respondent(s)             :     Mr. R.D. Bhadu
                                    Mr. Arjun Singh Rathore



               HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI

                                  JUDGMENT

Judgment reserved on                        <>              01/11/2023
Judgment pronounced on                      <>              06/11/2023



 [2023:RJ-JD:37490]                      (2 of 7)                           [CW-365/2001]




1.    The    instant     writ    petition      has      been        preferred   by   the

petitioners under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India

with the following prayers:-

"It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that by an appropriate writ order or direction impugned orders dated 09.05.2000 and 27.11.2000 passed by Board of Revenue may kindly be quashed and set aside.

(b) By appropriate writ, order or direction the Respondents may kindly be restrained from dispossessing the petitioners from the land in dispute.

(c) Any other order, writ, or direction may be passed deemed expedient in the interest of justice.

(d) Writ petition be allowed with costs."

2. Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that late

Shri Lal Singh was the Jagirdar of Village Gudia, Tehsil Bali,

District Pali. The land in dispute was entered as Khudkast in the

name of Lal Singh when Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption

of Jagirs Act, 1952, (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1951),

came into force and the land in dispute was entered as Siwai

Chak. The disputed land was in the possession of Shri Lal Singh

and his sons and because of this entry in the revenue records,

proceedings under Section 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act,

1956, were initiated against the petitioners and Shri Lal Singh,

vide order dated 17.11.1970. The Naib Tehsildar ordered for

eviction of the said land.

3. Being aggrieved of the order dated 17.11.1970, an appeal

was preferred by Shri Lal Singh and the same was decided by the

Additional Collector on 23.09.1971 ((Annexure-1). While deciding

[2023:RJ-JD:37490] (3 of 7) [CW-365/2001]

the appeal, relevant records which were produced before the Naib

Tehsildar were examined and while examining the same, the

Additional Collector, Pali, came to the conclusion that after perusal

of relevant Girdawari pertaining to Samvat Year 2011 and

onwards, it is clear that the land in dispute was entered as

Khudkast of Shri Lal Singh. It was further observed, that Jagir was

resumed in Samvat Year 2015 and before and after the

resumption, the land in dispute was in possession of Shri Lal Singh

and his sons and consequently it was observed that they were not

the trespassers and thus, the appeal was allowed and the order

dated 17.10.1970 was set aside.

4. In pursuance of the order dated 23.09.1971 (Annexure-1) an

order was passed on 17.01.1976 (Annexure-2) by Tehsildar Bali,

District Pali, whereby, proceedings under Section 91 of the Act of

1956 were dropped. According to the provisions of law contained

in Section 10 of the Act of 1952, the land which stands entered as

Khudkast in the name of Jagirdar becomes the Khatedari land. In

the present case also, Shri Lal Singh was a Jagirdar of Village

Gudia and the land in dispute was entered as Khudkast in his

name and in this view of the matter, the Gram Panchayat, opened

a mutation as directed by the Tehsildar and entered the land in

the dispute as Khatedari of Lal Singh and his sons.

5. One Vijay Singh (respondent No.1) moved an application on

06.09.1980 before the Collector for cancellation of mutation

No.30, which was attached by the Gram Panchayat. The Collector,

without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners,

made a reference under Section 82 of the Rajasthan Land

Revenue Act, 1956, and passed a reference order dated

[2023:RJ-JD:37490] (4 of 7) [CW-365/2001]

25.04.1989 (Annexure-3) for making reference to the Board of

Revenue for cancellation of mutation No.30. The learned Board of

Revenue, Ajmer, vide order dated 09.05.2000 (Annexure-4),

accepted the reference and cancelled the mutation No.30 passed

by the Gram Panchayat and being aggrieved of the same, a special

appeal under Section 10 of the Act of 1956, was submitted which

was heard and rejected by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer, vide

order dated 27.11.2000.

6. Being aggrieved of the order dated 09.05.2000 (Annexure-4)

and the order dated 27.11.2000 (Annexure-5) passed by the

Board of Revenue, Ajmer, the petitioner has preferred the present

writ petition.

7. Learned counsel representing the petitioners submitted

that:-

(a) The Additional District Collector, Pali vide order dated

23.09.1971 (Annexure-1) had observed that the land in dispute

has been entered as Khudkast in the name of Ex-Jagirdar Late

Shri Lal Singh and thus, once, the land is entered as Khudkast,

then, in accordance with the provisions as laid down under Section

10 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act,

1952, the land would automatically become the Khatedari of the

Jagirdar.

(b) The Collector passed an order dated 23.09.1971 (Annexure-

1) and against the said order, no appeal had been preferred by the

State Government and thus, the said order has attained finality

and the respondents have also mutated the land in question in the

year 1973.

[2023:RJ-JD:37490] (5 of 7) [CW-365/2001]

(c) No reason whatsoever has been assigned for the delay in

filing the application by the private respondent after a period of 19

years and thus, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the

ground of delay and latches and with costs.

In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the

petitioners placed reliance upon the judgment dated 06.12.2016

passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in SB. Civil Writ

Petition No.2290/1999; titled as Padma Ram Vs. Board of

Revenue & Ors., wherein, the writ petition was allowed by

setting aside the orders which were passed against the petitioner.

8. Per contra, learned counsel representing the respondents

Nos.2, 3 and 4, vehemently and fervently opposed the

submissions of the petitioners and submitted that:-

(a) The land was recorded as Khudkast land of Shri Lal Singh

and the land was recorded as Khalsa Sarkar. Thus, the contention

of the petitioner is ill-founded that the land was recorded as

Khudkast of Shri Lal Singh.

(b) Shri Lal Singh was not the Jagirdar of Village Gudia, as he

was the youngest brother of the Ex-Jagirdar of the Village Balana.

(c) Before the settlement, Khasra No.50 admeasuring 15 Bighas

and 3 Biswas of Village Gudia was a Parat land, therefore, it was

recorded as Khalsa Government land.

(d) The Gram Panchayat, Balana had opened a mutation in the

name of Shri Lal Singh and his sons without any lawful order in

their favour, as at that time, Shri Lal Singh was the Sarpanch of

the said Gram Panchayat and in the garb of the order dated

23.09.1971 (Annexure-1) passed by the Additional District

[2023:RJ-JD:37490] (6 of 7) [CW-365/2001]

Collector, Pali, the land was mutated in their name in an illegal

manner.

9. Heard learned counsel for the parties; perused the material

available on record.

10. This Court finds, that the Board of Revenue, Ajmer, vide its

order dated 27.11.2000 (Annexure-5), has observed that the

petitioner was unable to indicate as to how the mutation

proceedings could be entered in the name of Shri Lal Singh when

there were no orders passed by the competent court. The Board of

Revenue has also observed that the proceedings under Section 91

of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, were initiated against

Shri Lal Singh and he was adjudged as a trespasser and in

consequence thereof, an order for dispossessing him from the said

property in dispute was passed and the penalty as well, was levied

upon him.

11. The Board of Revenue, Ajmer also observed that Shri Lal

Singh had preferred an appeal before the Additional District

Collector, Pali, who beyond his jurisdiction, observed in his order

that Shri Lal Singh was in occupation of the land in his own right

as a sub-tenant of the Jagirdar and has further observed that the

Additional District Collector, Pali, has acted beyond its jurisdiction,

as his jurisdiction was confined only to the extent of Section 91 of

the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956.

12. This Court also finds that the petitioners have miserably

failed to demonstrate before the Board of Revenue, Ajmer, the

basis of mutation entries made in the name of Shri Lal Singh in

the absence of any order passed by the competent court and

furthermore, that there was no occasion for the Additional District

[2023:RJ-JD:37490] (7 of 7) [CW-365/2001]

Collector, Pali to hold in his order dated 23.09.1971 (Annexure-1)

that Shri Lal Singh was in occupation of the land in his own right

as a sub-tenant of the Jagirdar.

13. Thus, in view of the discussion made hereinabove, no

interference is called for in the order dated 09.05.2000

(Annexure-4) as well as in the order dated 27.11.2000 (Annexure-

5) passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer, and thus, the present

writ petition, being devoid of any merit, stands dismissed.

14. Stay application as well as all other pending applications, if

any, also stand dismissed. No order as to costs.

(DR. NUPUR BHATI),J

Devesh Thanvi/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)