Bharmal Ram And Anr vs State And Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 8066 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:32777]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 913/1999

Late Shri Bharmal Ram through his LRs. & Ors.

----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors.

                                                                       ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)              :    Mr. Shreyash Ramdev
For Respondent(s)              :    Mr. I.S. Pareek, A.G.C.

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Judgment

Reserved on 04/10/2023 Pronounced on 06/10/2023

1. The matter pertains to the year 1999, and thus, listed under

the category of "Oldest Cases for Early Disposal".

2. The instant petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the

Constitution of India has been preferred against the order dated

29.06.1998 (Annexure-7) passed by the Collector -cum- Deputy

Colonisation Commissioner, Bikaner, whereby the said revenue

authority made a reference before the learned Board of Revenue

for Rajasthan (BoR), Ajmer; the order dated 09.09.1998

(Annexure-8) passed by the learned BoR accepting such reference

while setting aside the order dated 10.05.1989 (Annexure-4)

passed by the Assistant Colonisation Commissioner, IGNP, Kolayat

(Assistant Commissioner'), has also been assailed in the instant

petition.

[2023:RJ-JD:32777] (2 of 6) [CW-913/1999]

3. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned

counsel of the petitioners, are that the petitioners had filed an

application under Sections 125 & 136 of the Rajasthan Land

Revenue Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1956') before

the Assistant Commissioner for correction of entries in the

revenue records. It was stated that the petitioners were in

cultivatory possession of the land comprising khasra no. 708

Rakba 86 bighas at Village Gogariyawala, since samwat 2012, and

therefore, the said land may be recorded in their name.

Thereafter, the statements of one Phoosa Ram and Harlal were

recorded regarding the possession of the petitioners over the land

in question.

3.1. The Assistant Commissioner vide order dated 10.05.1989

allowed the aforesaid application, and passed a decree in favour of

the petitioners; it was also directed that the mutation entries be

made accordingly.

3.2. Subsequently, the Collector -cum- Deputy Colonisation

Commissioner, Bikaner, vide the impugned order dated

29.06.1998, made a reference under Section 232 of the Rajasthan

Tenancy Act, 1955 and Section 82 of the Act of 1956 before the

learned BoR, against the aforesaid order dated 10.05.1989. The

learned BoR vide the impugned order dated 09.09.1998 accepted

the reference and set aside the order dated 10.05.1989.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the land in

question is the ancestral land of the petitioners and they are

cultivating the same, since the summary settlement made in

samwat 2012 and regular settlement samwat 2017, and therefore,

[2023:RJ-JD:32777] (3 of 6) [CW-913/1999]

the Assistant Commissioner has rightly allowed their application

while ordering correction of the entries in the revenue records.

4.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the respondents have

not preferred any appeal against the order dated 10.05.1989, but

the reference in question was made after an inordinate delay of

almost 10 years, which is not permissible under the law.

4.2. Learned counsel also submitted that the Collector -cum-

Deputy Colonisation Commissioner and the learned BoR

committed grave irregularity in passing the impugned orders,

because the petitioners' possession over the land in question is in

the capacity of being recorded khatedars, which is clear from the

aforementioned order dated 10.05.1989 passed by the Assistant

Commissioner. Thus, as per learned counsel, the impugned orders

are not sustainable in the eye of law.

4.3. In support of such submissions, learned counsel relied upon

the following judgments:

(a) State of Rajasthan Vs. Teja & Ors. (D.B. Civil Special Appeal

No.1118/2000, decided by a Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court

on 04.01.2005;

(b) Chutra & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (S.B. Civil Writ

Petition No.3993/1998, decided by a Coordinate Bench of this

Hon'ble Court on 08.12.2011);

(c) Radha Kishan Vs. State & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.6733/2003, decided by a Coordinate Bench of this Hon'ble

Court on 26.08.2015; and

[2023:RJ-JD:32777] (4 of 6) [CW-913/1999]

(d) Poosa Ram Vs. The Board of Revenue & Ors. (D.B. Civil Writ

Petition No.179/1989, decided by a Division Bench of this Hon'ble

Court on 18.09.1995.

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Counsel

appearing on behalf of the respondents, while opposing the

aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioners,

submitted that the petitioners have not produced any document

before the learned revenue authorities below regarding their

possession over the land in question. It was further submitted that

Colonization Tehsildar, Kolayat no.4 also stated that the petitioners

were not in possession of the land in question, as claimed by

them.

5.1. It was also submitted that the Assistant Commissioner

passed the order dated 10.05.1989 solely on the basis of the

statements of two witnesses, who did not even identify the land in

question, nor have not deposed anything which could substantiate

the claim of the petitioners in regard to their possession over the

land in question.

5.2. It was further submitted that the reference was made by the

Collector -cum- Deputy Colonisation Commissioner because the

order dated 10.05.1989 was nothing but a grave irregularity, and

therefore, the reference in question was rightly made and

accepted, vide the impugned orders.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the

record of the case.

7. This Court observes that the petitioners had filed the

aforementioned application seeking correction of entries in the

[2023:RJ-JD:32777] (5 of 6) [CW-913/1999]

revenue records, which was allowed by the Assistant

Commissioner on 10.05.1989, Thereafter, the Collector-cum-

Deputy Colonisation Commissioner made the aforementioned

reference vide the impugned order dated 29.06.1998 before the

learned BoR, against the order dated 10.05.1989. The learned

BoR vide the impugned order dated 09.09.1998 accepted such

reference, while setting aside the order dated dated 10.05.1989

passed by the Assistant Commissioner.

8. This Court further observes that the Assistant Commissioner

had drawn the conclusion regarding khatedari rights in favour of

the petitioners only on the basis of the statements of two

witnesses i.e. Phoosa Ram and Harlal, and apart therefrom, the

petitioners did not produce any document regarding their

possession over the land in question.

9. This Court also observes that the Colonization Tehsildar,

Kolayat no.4 took objections before the Assistant Commissioner in

his reply to the aforementioned application, but the Assistant

Commissioner did not consider such objections, and passed the

order and decree in favour of the petitioners. This Court further

observes that the reference was made by the Collector -cum-

Deputy Colonisation Commissioner after a delay of almost 10

years, which in the present factual matrix, is justified, because as

per the settled proposition of law, the issue of delay always

depends on the facts and circumstances of a particular case. In

the present case, the Assistant Commissioner had drawn the

conclusion regarding khatedari rights in favour of the petitioners

[2023:RJ-JD:32777] (6 of 6) [CW-913/1999]

without any cogent material and evidence in support thereof, and

thus, the said order suffers from grave illegality and irregularity.

10. This Court, therefore, observes that the reference in question

was rightly made by the Collector -cum- Deputy Colonisation

Commissioner, which in turn was rightly accepted by the learned

BoR vide the impugned order, after duly analyzing the material

and evidence placed on record before it.

11. The judgments cited at the Bar on behalf of the petitioners

do not render any assistance to their case.

12. Thus, in light of the aforesaid observations and looking into

the factual matrix of the present case, this Court does not find it a

fit case so as to grant any relief to the petitioners in the present

petition.

13. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. All pending

applications stand disposed of.

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.

SKant/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)