Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Mori Devi vs Rasal Kanwar on 31 October, 2023

Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

[2023:RJ-JD:36564]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14390/2023

1. Mori Devi W/o Ramaji, Aged About 72 Years, By Caste Raika, Resident Of Tewali, Tehsil Pali, District Pali (Raj.).

2. Badra Ram S/o Ramaji, Aged About 48 Years, By Caste Raika, Resident Of Tewali, Tehsil Pali, District Pali (Raj.).

----Petitioners Versus

1. Rasal Kanwar W/o Mangal Singh, D/o Late Sagat Singh Rajput, R/o Keerva, Tehsil Pali, District Pali.

2. Devi Singh S/o Binjraj Singh, By Caste Rajpurohit, R/o Thakurla, Tehsil Pali, District Pali

3. Bhanwar Singh S/o Bhopal Singh, By Caste Rajpurohit, R/ o Thakurla, Tehsil Pali, District Pali. State Of Rajasthan Through Tehsildar, Pali, District Pali.

4. Bhopal S/o Neneaji Raika (Dewasi), R/o Gundoj, Tehsil Pali, District Pali.

5. Durgakanwar D/o Late Moti Singh, By Caste Rajput, R/o Osatara, Tehsil Bhopalgarh, District Jodhpur.

6. Malam Singh S/o Late Moti Singh, By Caste Rajput, R/o Osatara, Tehsil Bhopalgarh, District Jodhpur.

7. Hanuman Singh S/o Late Moti Singh, By Caste Rajput, R/ o Osatara, Tehsil Bhopalgarh, District Jodhpur.

8. Dayal Singh S/o Late Moti Singh, By Caste Rajput, R/o Osatara, Tehsil Bhopalgarh, District Jodhpur.

9. Suraj Kanwar W/o Late Kalyan Singh, By Caste Rajput, R/ o Osatara, Tehsil Bhopalgarh, District Jodhpur.

10. Bhanwar Singh S/o Late Kalyan Singh, By Caste Rajput, R/o Osatara, Tehsil Bhopalgarh, District Jodhpur.

11. Bhagwan Singh S/o Late Kalyan Singh, By Caste Rajput, R/o Osatara, Tehsil Bhopalgarh, District Jodhpur.

12. Santosh Kanwar D/o Late Arjun Singh, By Caste Rajput, R/o Osatara, Tehsil Bhopalgarh, District Jodhpur.

13. Jitendra Singh S/o Late Arjun Singh, By Caste Rajput, R/o Osatara, Tehsil Bhopalgarh, District Jodhpur.

14. Kan Singh S/o Late Arjun Singh, (Minor Through His Mother Smt. Santosh Kanwar D/o Late Arjun Singh, By Caste Rajput, R/o Osatara, Tehsil Bhopalgarh, District Jodhpur.

15. Sushri Guddi D/o Late Arjun Singh, By Caste Rajput, R/o Osatara, Tehsil Bhopalgarh, District Jodhpur.

16. Sushri Suman D/o Late Arjun Singh, By Caste Rajput, R/o

[2023:RJ-JD:36564] (2 of 7) [CW-14390/2023]

Osatara, Tehsil Bhopalgarh, District Jodhpur.

17. Gram Panchayat Gundoj, District Pali.

18. State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar, Pali, District Pali.

                                                                    ----Respondents



For Petitioner(s)             :    Mr. Teja Ram
For Respondent(s)             :    Mr. N.S. Rajpurohit

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Judgment

Reserved on 18/10/2023 Pronounced on 31/11/2023

1. This writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution

of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed on behalf of petitioners that the writ petition may kindly be allowed and:-

(a) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned order dated 24.08.2023 passed by the learned Board of Revenue, Ajmer in REVISION/L.R./2956/2016/DISTRICT PALI (Annexure-13), may kindly be quashed and set aside.

(b) Any other appropriate order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court considers just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners.

(c) Costs of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioners."

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

counsel of the petitioner, are that one Smt. Mohan Kanwar W/o of

Late Sagat Singh preferred an appeal under Section 75 of the

Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act

[2023:RJ-JD:36564] (3 of 7) [CW-14390/2023]

of 1956') alongwith an application under Section 5 of the

Limitation Act, 1963 before the Additional District Collector-Cum-

Sub Divisional Officer, Pali against the respondent no.5 to 18,

stating therein that a land comprising khasra nos. 1869, 2264 and

2265 situated in Village Gundoj, Tehsil Pali was possession of the

one Panney Singh and Late Sagat Singh, and after the death of

Panney Singh, name of Moti Singh (father of respondents no.5 to

8) and Kalyan Singh (father of respondents no.9 to 11) were

shown as legal representatives of Late Panney Singh, in respect of

the land in question, whereupon, the land in question registered in

the name of Moti Singh and Kalyan Singh and mutation entry no.

898 dated 07.01.1976 was recorded in the revenue records.

2.1 The learned Additional District Collector-Cum-Sub Divisional

Officer vide order dated 25.06.2012 has condoned the delay of 31

years in filing the appeal and while cancelling the mutation entry

no. 898 dated 07.01.1976 in the revenue records, the matter was

remanded back to the Tehsildar, Pali, with a direction to make an

enquiry regarding the legal representatives of Late Panney Singh

and Late Sagat Singh, and thereafter, pass fresh orders after

giving proper opportunity of the hearing to all the concerned

parties.

2.2 Aggrieved by the order dated 25.06.2012, the respondent

no.2 & 3, claiming themselves to be the bonafide purchasers of

the land in question, filed an appeal under Section 76 of the Act of

1956 before the learned Additional Divisional Commissioner,

Jodhpur. During pendency of the said appeal, the petitioner filed

an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC seeking impleadment

[2023:RJ-JD:36564] (4 of 7) [CW-14390/2023]

therein as party, which was was allowed on 15.10.2015.

Thereafter, the learned Additional Divisional Commissioner vide

order dated 11.04.2016 allowed the appeal and quashed the

aforementioned order dated 25.06.2012 passed by the Additional

District Collector.

2.3. Against the aforementioned order dated 11.04.2016, the

respondent no.1 filed a revision petition under Section 84 of the

Act of 1956 before the learned Board of Revenue (BoR) for

Rajasthan, Ajmer, whereupon the learned BoR vide order dated

24.08.2023 allowed the said revision and quashed the order dated

11.04.2016 passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner,

and further directed the Tehsidar, Pali to comply with the

aforementioned order dated 25.06.2012, except in regard to the

land in respect whereof a compromise has been arrived at

between the petitioner and respondent no.2.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

mutation entry was challenged after a gross delay of 31 years and

the same was condoned by the learned Additional District

Collector, which is highly illegal and unjustified in law.

3.1. Learned counsel further submitted that at the time of

challenging the mutation entry in question, Mohan Kanwar was

very well aware about the mutation in question because she

executed an alleged Will in favour of the respondent no.1 on

01.10.2007, wherein it was clearly stated that she sold the land,

which was subject matter of the mutation in question.

3.2. Learned counsel also submitted that the petitioners are

bonafide purchasers of the land in question on basis of the

[2023:RJ-JD:36564] (5 of 7) [CW-14390/2023]

registered sale deed and the said sale deed was never challenged,

and therefore, the impugned order is highly illegal and unjustified

in law.

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 the mutation entry no.

898 was wrongly recorded in the name of Moti Singh (Father of

respondent no. 5 to 8) and Kalyan Singh (Father of respondent no.

9 to 11). It was further submitted that the said mutation entry

was made without any resolution of the gram panchayat.

4.1. It was further submitted that after the death of Mohan

Kanwar W/o Sagat Singh (Mother of the respondent no.1), the

respondent no.1 became the first heir of the land in question as

per the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and therefore, the impugned

order passed by the learned BoR is justified in law.

4.2. It was also submitted that the learned revenue courts below

i.e. the learned Additional District Collector & SDO as well as the

learned BoR quashed the mutation entry in question after duly

considering all the relevant aspects of the case as well as after

due appreciation of the material placed on record before them.

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

record of the case.

6. This Court observes that Smt Mohan Kanwar W/o Late Sagat

Singh filed the aforementioned appeal before the learned

Additional District Collector-Cum-Sub Divisional Officer against the

respondent no.5 to 18 against the alleged illegal and forged

mutation entry no. 898 dated 07.01.1976, which was recorded in

[2023:RJ-JD:36564] (6 of 7) [CW-14390/2023]

the revenue records, whereupon the mutation entry was cancelled

and the matter was remanded back to the Tehsildar as mentioned

above, vide order dated 25.06.2012. Aggrieved by the said order,

the respondent no.2 & 3 filed an appeal before the Additional

Divisional Commissioner, which was allowed on 11.04.2016 and

the order dated 25.06.2012 was quashed.

6.1 Thereafter, being aggrieved by the order dated 11.04.2016,

the respondent no.1 filed a revision petition before learned BoR

and the same was allowed on 24.08.2023, while quashing the

order dated 11.04.2016.

7. This Court further observes that during pendency of the

aforesaid revision petition, a compromise was arrived between the

respondent no.1-Rasal Kanwar and respondent no.3-Bhanwar

Singh S/o Gopal Singh, and the same was notarized 09.04.2021

and filed before the learned BoR.

Relevant portion of the said compromise which was recorded

in the impugned order of the learned BoR is reproduced as

hereunder:-

"vizkFkhZ la[;k 1 o 2 ds }kjk lgou ls muds [kljk uacj 1869@1 ds ckcr~ laHkkxh; vk;qDr tks/kiqj ds le{k vihy izLrqr dh xbZ Fkh vc mDr [kljk uacj ckcr~ dksbZ fookn "ks'k ugha gS blfy;s ;fn lgk;d dysDVj ,oa mi[k.M vf/kdkjh] ikyh ds fu.kZ; fnukad 25-06-2012 ds fu.kZ; dks ;Fkkor~ j[kk tkrk gS rks vizkFkhZ la[;k 1 o 2 dks dksbZ ,srjkt ugha gS A vkSj laHkkxh; vk;qDr] tks/kiqj ds fu.kZ; fnukad 11-04-2016 dks fujLr fd;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr gS D;ksafd mDr ukekarj.k ckcr~ vizkFkhZ la[;k 1 o 2 ds [kljk uacj 1869@1 ds ckcr~ laHkkxh; vk;qDr] tks/kiqj ds le{k vihy izLrqr dh xbZ Fkh blfy;s vc fuxjkuh ds ek/;e ls laHkkxh; vk;qDr] tks/kiqj ds fu.kZ; fnukad 11-04-2016 dks fujLr djrs gq, lgk;d

[2023:RJ-JD:36564] (7 of 7) [CW-14390/2023]

dysDVj ,oa mi[k.M vf/kdkjh] ikyh ds fu.kZ; fnukad 25&06&2012 dks cgky j[kk tkos A"

8. This Court also observes that the learned BoR in the

impugned order clearly stated that the matter was remanded back

to the Tehsildar for enquiry regarding the legal heirs qua the land

in question, which is justified in law. This Court further observes

that in a case like the present one where the actual position

cannot be duly ascertained and determined, unless there is an

enquiry, then the Tehsildar is the competent authority to make an

enquiry regarding the legal heirs in question and the mutation

entry in question, in accordance with law.

9. This Court also observes that there are findings of the

learned Additional District Collector-Cum-Sub Divisional Officer as

well as the learned BoR, which do not require any interference,

and thus, this Court does not find any legal infirmity in the

impugned order passed by the learned BoR.

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 petitioners in the present

petition.