Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Mumal vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 16 October, 2023

Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

[2023:RJ-JD:35305]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15260/2023

Mumal D/o Late Shri Narayan Ram, W/o Shri Chunni Lal, Aged About 71 Years, R/o Meghwalo Ki Basti, Digadi, Tehsil And District Jodhpur (Raj.)

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Tehsildar, Jodhpur

2. Devaram S/o Late Shri Narayan Ram, Resident Of Uchiyara, Tehsil And District Jodhpur

3. Tulchharam S/o Late Shri Narayan Ram, Resident Of Uchiyara, Tehsil And District Jodhpur

4. Lunaram S/o Late Shri Narayan Ram, Resident Of Uchiyara, Tehsil And District Jodhpur

5. Jagnath S/o Kishandas, R/o Pabupura, Tehsil And District Jodhpur (Raj.)

6. Draupdi Sankhla W/o Pyarelal, R/o Uchiyara, Tehsil And District Jodhpur (Raj.)

7. Smt. Rekha Gokul Kunojiya, R/o 311, Sector-7, Gande Nale Ke Pas, New Power House Road, Tehsil And District Jodhpur

8. Jeewan Ram S/o Buddha Ram, R/o 112, Ashok Vihar, Sikargarh, Tehsil And District Jodhpur

9. Chhogaram S/o Shri Bijaram, R/o Ekta Nagar, Banad Road, Jodhpur

10. Laxmanram S/o Daglaram, R/o Ashok Nagar, Sikargarh, Jodhpur

11. Nandlal S/o Motiram, R/o Ramdev Nagar, Masuriya, Jodhpur

12. Smt. Kalki Devi W/o Narayanram, D/o Late Shri Narayan Ram, R/o Khatiyasani, Tehsil And District Jodhpur

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vinay Jain a/w Mr. Darshan Jain.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. H.S. Rajpurohit.

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

[2023:RJ-JD:35305] (2 of 7) [CW-15260/2023]

Order

16/10/2023

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

"It is, therefore, prayed that by appropriate writ, order or direction, judgment dated 15.09.2023 (Annexure-12) passed by Board of Revenue in Review/Petition/LR/2023/2765/Jodhpur 'Mumal Vs Devaram And Others' may kindly be quashed and set aside and order dated 30.05.2023 (Annexure-6) passed by Board of Revenue in Revision/ Petition/LR/ 2022/ 3237/ Jodhpur 'Mumal Vs Devaram And Others' may also be quashed and set aside and Board of Revenue be directed to restore the Revision Petition no.REVISION/LR/NO.3237/2022 and same be decided afresh on merit.

Any other order which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner."

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

learned counsel of the petitioner, are that the petitioner filed an

appeal under Section 75 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956

(hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1956') before the Additional

District Collector (Second), Jodhpur against the respondents,

stating therein that the petitioner's father Late Shri Narayan Ram

was having an agricultural land comprising khasra no. 138 Rakba

23 Bigha 19 Biswa situated at Village Uchiyarrada and the said

land was recorded in the name of Late Narayan Ram. After the

demise of the petitioner's father (Narayan Ram), the land in

question through transfer no. 86 dated 22.05.1992, on count of

collusion between the respondents no.2 to 4 and the concerned

[2023:RJ-JD:35305] (3 of 7) [CW-15260/2023]

Tehsildar and Patwari, was recorded in the name of the

respondent no. 2 to 4, despite the fact that the petitioner falls

under the first successor category.

2.1 Thereafter, learned Additional District Collector vide the

judgment dated 09.09.2020 dismissed the aforesaid appeal;

aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the

learned Additional Divisional Commissioner, Jodhpur under Section

76 of the Act of 1956, which was also dismissed vide the

judgment dated 10.06.2022.

2.2 Subsequently, the petitioner filed a revision petition under

Sections 84 & 9 of the Act of 1956 before the learned Board of

Revenue (BOR) for Rajasthan, Ajmer, which however, on account

of compromise between the parties and execution of

relinquishment/release deed dated 23.05.2023, was sought to be

withdrawn by way of filing a withdrawal application, as reflected in

the impugned order dated 30.05.2023 passed by the learned BoR.

2.3. The petitioner thereafter, filed a civil suit on 12.07.2023

against the respondent no.2 before the Additional Civil Judge

No.2, Jodhpur Metropolitan, laying challenging to the

aforementioned relinquishment/release deed, with a prayer for

permanent injunction against the respondent no.2.

2.4 Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application under

Sections 86 and 9 of the Act of 1956 read with Section 151 CPC,

before the learned BoR seeking recall of the aforementioned order

dated 30.05.2023, stating therein that the aforementioned

withdrawal application was wrongly filed under some

misconception and under concealment, and thus, the original

[2023:RJ-JD:35305] (4 of 7) [CW-15260/2023]

revision preferred before the learned BoR may be restored. The

learned BoR vide the impugned judgment dated 15.09.2023

rejected the said application. Thus, the present petition has been

preferred against the order dated 30.05.2023 and the judgment

dated 15.09.2023 passed by the learned BoR.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner

is an old and illiterate lady aged 70 years, and that, the

compromise in question is not sustainable in the eye of law, as the

same was executed under material concealment on the part of the

respondents, leading to withdrawal of the revision before the

learned BoR on 30.05.2023.

3.1. Learned counsel further submits that the withdrawal

application in question was filed under wrong impression and

material concealment, and that, the petitioner also lodged an FIR

against the respondent no.2 before the concerned police station,

but ignoring the said vital aspect of the matter, the learned

revenue authorities below declined to grant the relief prayed for

by the petitioner, vide the impugned order and judgment.

3.2. Learned counsel also submits that the respondents by way of

raising the construction are bent upon to change the status of the

land in question, which clearly affects the rights of the petitioner,

and therefore, the impugned order and judgment are not

sustainable in the eye of law.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of

the respondents, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made

on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the mutation was

[2023:RJ-JD:35305] (5 of 7) [CW-15260/2023]

recorded on 22.05.1992, while the petitioner preferred the appeal

after an inordinate and unexplained delay of 22 years.

4.1. It was further submitted that the petitioner has withdrawn

the case before the learned BoR on 30.05.2023, on count of

compromise duly entered between the parties, and that, the

petitioner also received the money towards settlement from the

respondent no.2; thereafter, the petitioner as well as her sister

Kalki Devi executed relinquishment/release deed dated

23.05.2023, which was registered before the Sub-Registrar

(Stamps), Jodhpur whereby they relinquished all their rights

pertaining to the land in question in favour of the respondents.

4.2. It was also submitted that after receiving complete payment

towards the settlement, the petitioner executed a consent deed

dated 29.05.2023 in favour of the respondent no.2, whereafter,

the petitioner sought to withdraw the aforementioned revision, as

reflected in the impugned order dated 30.05.2023 passed by the

learned BoR.

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

record of the case.

6. This Court observes that the petitioner filed the

aforementioned appeal before the learned Additional District

Collector against the respondents and the same was dismissed on

09.09.2020; aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred

appeal before the learned Divisional Commissioner, which was also

dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a revision petition before

the learned BOR, during the pendency whereof, the petitioner

filed an application for withdrawal of the same, on count of

[2023:RJ-JD:35305] (6 of 7) [CW-15260/2023]

compromise between the parties and execution of the

relinquishment/release deed dated 23.05.2023, which was allowed

vide the impugned order dated 30.05.2023.

7. This Court further observes that subsequently, the petitioner

filed an application before the learned BoR seeking recall of the

impugned order dated 30.05.2023, stating therein that the

withdrawal application was the outcome of the fraudulent act of

concealment of material facts, on the part of the respondents, and

thus, prayed to restore the original revision petition. The learned

BoR vide impugned judgment dated 15.09.2023 dismissed the

said application.

8. This Court also observes that the petitioner executed the

relinquishment deed dated 23.05.2023 and the same was

registered before the Sub-Registrar (Stamps), Jodhpur, whereby

the petitioner and her sister relinquished all their rights pertaining

to the land in question in the favour of the respondents, resulting

into filing of the aforementioned withdrawal application, which was

allowed vide the impugned order dated 30.05.2023.

8.1. This Court further observes that there is thumb impression of

the petitioner on the withdrawal application and the Vakalatnama

was also authorized by the petitioner, and even on 30.05.2022,

when the withdrawal application was taken up by the learned BoR,

the petitioner herself was present.

For ready reference, the impugned order dated 30.05.2022

passed by the learned BoR is reproduced as hereunder:-

"i=koyh is"k gqbZA odhy izkFkhZ Jh izdk"k HkkVh o odhy vizkFkhZ Jh iou pkSgku mi- gSA odhy izkFkhZ us ,d izkFkZuk i= e; odkyrukek

[2023:RJ-JD:35305] (7 of 7) [CW-15260/2023]

ckcr~ izdj.k jkthukek gksus ls fuxjkuh foMªks Qjekus fnukad 30-05-23 is"k dj fuosnu fd;k fd mHk; i{kdkjku~ ds e/; vkilh jkthukek gksus ls os vc fuxjkuh dks vkxs ughsa pykuk pkgrs gSA vr% fuxjkuh foMªks Qjek;h tkosA izkFkZuk i= U;k;fgr esa Lohdkj fd;k tkdj i{kdkjksa ds e/; le>kSrk gksus ls fuxjkuh vkxs ugha pyk;s tkus ds dkj.k foMªks djus dk vkns"k fn;k tkrk gSA i=koyh Qsly "kqekj gksdj ckn dk;Zokgh nkf[ky n¶rj gSA vkns"k [kqys U;k;ky; esa lquk;k x;kA"

9. This Court also observes that once the settlement has been

arrived at between the parties resulting into withdrawal of the

revision petition, on the said count, the recalling application so

filed by the petitioner, being not maintainable, was rightly rejected

by the learned BoR vide the impugned judgment dated

15.09.2023.

10. 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 petitioner in the present

petition.