Chhogi vs Lrs Of Vana Ram
2023 Latest Caselaw 8758 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:35207]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15354/2023

1. Chhogi D/o Ota Ram, Wo Ram Lal, Aged About 60 Years, By Caste Dangi, Resident Of Bali. At Present Krishi Upaj Mandi, Sumerpur District Pali.

2. Phulki D/o Ota Ram, W/o Ram Lal @ Lakma Ram, Aged About 63 Years, Resident Of Boya Tehsil Bali District Pali.

3. Leela D/o Ota Ram, W/o Soma Ram @ Nena Ram, Aged About 57 Years, Resident Of Boya Tehsil Bali District Pali.

----Petitioners Versus

1. LRs Of Vana Ram S/o Vena Ram, By Caste Bhambi, Resident Of Bhagli, Tehsil Bali District Pali. 1/1. Hansa Devi W/o Late Vana Ram, By Caste Bhambi, Resident Of Bhagli, Tehsil Bali District Pali. 1/2. Chhagan Lal S/o Late Vana Ram, By Caste Bhambi, Resident Of Bhagli, Tehsil Bali District Pali. 1/3. Heera Lal S/o Late Vana Ram, By Caste Bhambi, Resident Of Bhagli, Tehsil Bali District Pali.

1/4. Vikram S/o Late Vana Ram, By Caste Bhambi, Resident Of Bhagli, Tehsil Bali District Pali.

1/5. Rekhi D/o Late Vana Ram, By Caste Bhambi, Resident Of Bhagli, Tehsil Bali District Pali.

1/6. Bhuti D/o Late Vena Ram, By Caste Bhambi, Resident Of Bhagli, Tehsil Bali District Pali.

2. Gajro W/o Late Nenaji, By Caste Meghwal, Resident Of Bhagli At Present Khudala Tehsil Bali District Pali.

3. Ramesh S/o Late Nenaji, By Caste Meghwal, Resident Of Bhagli At Present Khudala Tehsil Bali District Pali.

4. Mangi Lal S/o Late Nenaji, By Caste Meghwal, Resident Of Bhagli At Present Khudala Tehsil Bali District Pali.

5. Kamla D/o Late Nanaji, By Caste Meghwal, Resident Of Bhagli At Present Khudala Tehsil Bali District Pali.

6. State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar, Bali District Pali.

                                                                 ----Respondents



For Petitioner(s)          :    Mr. Budha Ram Choudhary
For Respondent(s)          :    Mr. Vikram Choudhary

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Judgment

[2023:RJ-JD:35207] (2 of 7) [CW-15354/2023]

Reserved on 11/10/2023 Pronounced on 20/10/2023

1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

"It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate writ, order or direction :

(i) The impugned judgment dated 29.08.2023 (Ann.6) passed by learned Board of Revenue, Ajmer, judgment dated 24.12.2018 (Ann.5) passed by learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Pali and judgment and decree dated 29.12.2016 (Ann.4) passed by learned Sub Divisional Officer, Bali District Pali may kindly be quashed and set aside.

(ii) The suit filed by respondents under section 88, 188 Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 may kindly be ordered to be dismissed.

(iii) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners."

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

counsel of the petitioners, are that the respondent no.1 (since

deceased represented through his legal representatives

respondents no.1/1 to 1/6 herein) instituted a suit (registered as

Revenue Case No. 237/2008) under Sections 88 & 188 Rajasthan

Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1955') before

the learned Sub Divisional Officer (SDO), Bali, District Pali

(Rajasthan) against the petitioners and respondents no.2 to 6 for

declaration of khatedari rights and permanent injunction, stating

therein that a land comprising old khasra no.144 measuring 16

bigha 16 biswa (new khasra no.293 rakba 3.36 hectares) situated

[2023:RJ-JD:35207] (3 of 7) [CW-15354/2023]

in Village-Bhagli, Tehsil-Bali was illegally, fraudulently and in

collusion with the official of the settlement department, got

recorded in the name of one Ota Ram (Otiya) (since deceased

represented by his legal representatives-petitioners herein). It

was thus prayed in the suit that such wrongful and fraudulent

recording pertaining to the land in question may be cancelled and

thereafter, the land in question may be recorded in the name of

the respondents no.1 to 5 (private respondents), being the

khatedar and descendants of the original khatedar Late Vena Ram

(Veniya).

2.1. Thereafter, the learned SDO, after hearing the parties, vide

the impugned judgment & decree dated 29.12.2016, allowed the

aforementioned suit and the land in question was ordered to be

recorded in the name of the respondent no. 1 to 5. Aggrieved by

the same, the petitioners preferred an appeal (registered as

Revenue Appeal No. 17/2017) before the learned Revenue

Appellate Authority (RAA), Pali, under Section 223 of the Act of

1955, which was dismissed vide the impugned judgment dated

24.12.2018. Against the said judgment of the learned Revenue

Appellate Authority, the petitioners preferred a second appeal

(registered as Appeal/Decree/TA/ 362/2019/Pali) under Section

224 of the Act of 1955 before the learned Board of Revenue (BoR)

for Rajasthan, Ajmer, which too was dismissed vide the impugned

judgment dated 29.08.2023, while upholding the impugned

judgment passed by the learned RAA. Thus, the present petition

has been preferred claiming the afore-quoted reliefs.

[2023:RJ-JD:35207] (4 of 7) [CW-15354/2023]

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the

private respondents claimed themselves to be the descendants of

Rama s/o Vena Ram (Veniya) while showing the mutation entry

no.28 dated 21.10.1962, despite the fact that the said mutation

entry was recorded in name of Rama s/o Keniya and not in the

name of Ram s/o Vena Ram (Veniya), and therefore, the

averments made by the private respondents were baseless and

false.

3.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioners' father

(Late Ota Ram) was the cultivator of the land in question and the

lagan and other land expenses were also paid by the petitioners

and their late father, and therefore the impugned judgments are

not justified in law.

3.2. Learned counsel also submitted that the land in question was

cultivated by the petitioners and their father for last 60 years. It

was further submitted that the learned revenue courts below

clearly fell into an error of law, in passing the impugned

judgments.

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

the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

Ravinder Kaur Grewal & Ors. Vs Manjit Kaur & Ors. (2019)

8 SCC 729; and Padhiyar Prahladji Chenaji (Deceased)

Through Lrs Vs Maniben Jagmalbhai (Deceased) Through

Lrs & Ors. (2022) 12 SCC 128.

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

the respondents, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made

on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that in the mutation entry

[2023:RJ-JD:35207] (5 of 7) [CW-15354/2023]

no. 28 dated 21.10.1960, wrong particulars i.e. Rama s/o Keniya,

instead of correct particulars i.e. Rama s/o Vena Ram (Veniya)

were made. It was further submitted that from the record, it is

clear that the petitioners' father (late Ota Ram) was in illegal and

unauthorized possession of the land in question.

4.1. It was also submitted that the land in question is an

ancestral property of the private respondents and the name of the

petitioners' father in regard to the said land was wrongly

recorded, and therefore, the learned revenue courts below have

rightly passed the impugned judgments, which do not call for any

interference by this Court in the instant petition.

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

record of the case alongwith the judgments cited at the Bar.

6. This Court observes that Late Vana Ram s/o Vena Ram, who

is represented through his legal representatives respondent no.1/1

to 1/6 instituted the aforementioned suit before the learned SDO

against the petitioners and the respondent no. 2 to 6 for

declaration of khatedari rights and permanent injunction, which

was allowed vide the impugned judgment & decree 29.12.2016.

Aggrieved by the said judgment, the petitioners preferred the

appeal before the learned RAA, but the same was dismissed vide

the impugned judgment dated 24.12.2018; the second appeal

before the learned BoR against the judgment of the learned RAA

was also dismissed vide the impugned judgment dated

29.08.2023.

7. This Court further observes that the private respondents are

the legal heirs of Vena Ram (Veniya) s/o Khushala and as per the

[2023:RJ-JD:35207] (6 of 7) [CW-15354/2023]

issue no.3 decided by the learned SDO, the land in question was

not recorded in the name of all the legal heirs of Veniya. This

Court also observes that as per the issues decided by the learned

SDO, at the time of land settlement proceedings, the father of the

petitioners filed an application before the Assistant Land

Settlement Officer, Jodhpur (Camp Bali) for recording his name in

the revenue records as khatedar of the land in question,

whereupon, the said authority, without following the due

procedure and without any order of the competent Court, in an

inappropriate manner ordered recording of the name of the

petitioners' father, in regard to the land in question, in the

revenue records.

8. This Court also observes that the learned SDO recorded that

the petitioners' father came in possession of the land in question

in Samwat 2015 itself, but the (petitioners' father) did not make

any endeavour to get the land in question recorded in his name; it

was only after 18 years of such possession, that the petitioners'

father filed the application before the Assistant Land Settlement

Officer for recording of his name on Samwat 2023 (calender year

2017), which clearly shows that the petitioners' father did not

approach the said authority with clean hands, and thus, the

learned SDO has rightly passed in the impugned judgment and

decree in favour of the private respondents.

9. This Court further observes that the learned SDO had passed

the impugned judgment & decree, after taking into due

consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case and

after duly appreciating the evidence placed on record before it,

[2023:RJ-JD:35207] (7 of 7) [CW-15354/2023]

and therefore, the RAA as well as BoR were perfectly justified in

upholding the same, vide the impugned judgments. In this view of

the matter, this Court does not find any reason to make

interference in the concurrent findings of the three learned

revenue courts below in the instant petition.

10. The judgments at the Bar on behalf of the petitioners also do

not render any assistance to their case.

11. 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.

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

applications stand disposed of.

(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.

SKant/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)