Mishri Lal Son Of Shri Jeevan Lal vs Board Of Revenue For Rajasthan, ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 5033 Raj/2

[2023:RJ-JP:21967]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

                     S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4559/2012

1.       Mishri Lal son of Shri Jeevan Lal (since deceased
         represented by;
1/1      Sh Dinesh Chand S/o Late Sh. Mishri Lal, (Since Deceased
         Represented By)
1/1/1 Smt. Maya Devi W/o Late Sh. Dinesh Chand Sharma, R/o
         Mandrail, Tehsil Mandrail, District Karauli.
1/1/2 Sh. Satyendra Sharma S/o Late Sh. Dinesh Chand, R/o
         Mandrail, Tehsil Mandrail, District Karauli.
1/1/3 Sh. Sunil Sharma S/o Late Sh. Dinesh Chand Sharma, R/o
         Mandrail, Tehsil Mandrail, District Karauli.
½        Raghuveer Sharan Sharma S/o Late Shri Mishri Lal, R/o
         Mandrail, Tehsil Mandrail, District Karauli.
1/3      Rampati D/o Late Shri Mishri Lal, R/o Mandrail, Tehsil
         Mandrail, District Karauli.
¼        Radha Devi D/o Late Shri Mishri Lal, R/o Mandrail, Tehsil
         Mandrail, District Karauli.
1/5      Sunita Sharma D/o Late Shri Mishir Lal, R/o Mandrail,
         Tehsil Mandrail, District Karauli.
2.       Bal Govind Son Of Shri Damodar, R/o Mandrail, Tehsil
         Mandrail, District Karauli.
3.       Brij Mohan Son Of Shri Jeevan Lal, R/o Mandrail, Tehsil
         Mandrail, District Karauli.
4.       Sita Wife Of Shri Jagmohan And Daughter Of Shri
         Damodar, R/o Mandrail, Tehsil Mandrail, District Karauli.
5.       Gita Wife Of Shri Rameshwar Dayal And D/o Shri
         Damodar, R/o Mandrail, Tehsil Mandrail, District Karauli.
6.       Bhagwati W/o Shri Shiv Charan And D/o Shri Damodar,
         R/o Mandrail, Tehsil Mandrail, District Karauli.
7.       Omwati Wife Of Shri Devi Prasad And D/o Shri Damodar,
         R/o Mandrail, Tehsil Mandrail, District Karauli.
8.       Ashok Kumar S/o Shri Ramji Lal, R/o Mandrail, Tehsil
         Mandrail, District Karauli.
                                                                     ----Petitioners
                                         Versus
1.       Board of Revenue for Rajasthan Ajmer through its
         Registrar
2.       Revenue Appellate Authority, Sawai Madhopur.


                         (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:07:38 PM)
 [2023:RJ-JP:21967]                   (2 of 11)                          [CW-4559/2012]


3.       Sub Divisional Officer, Mandrail, District Karauli.
4.       Tehsildar, Mandrail, District Karauli.
                                                      ---Proforma Respondents

5. Babulal, Since Expire Represented By-

5/1 Smt. Anita D/o Late Shri Shiv Charan W/o Sh. Mahesh Sharma, R/o 1602, Falcon Tower P.g. Road, Koli Samaj Hall Near Goregon Sports Club, Offlink Road, Malad (West) Mumbai.

5/2 Yogesh Sharma S/o Late Shri Babu Lal Sharma, Aged About 52 Years, R/o A-202, Nehru Nagar, Jaipur. 5/3 Smt. Neelima Sharma D/o Late Shri Babu Lal Sharma W/o Shri Hari Babu Sharma, Aged About 49 Years, R/o Plot No. 67, Sita Ram Colony, Shyopur Road, Pratap Nagar, Jaipur. 5/4 Rajesh Sharma S/o Late Shri Babu Lal Sharma, Aged About 45 Years, R/o 202, Nehru Nagar, Jaipur.

6. Hari Mohan Son Of Shri Ayodhya Prasad Singh, R/o Ghantaghar Ke Pass Wali Gali, Kota.

7. Vishnu Son Of Shri Ayodhya Prasad Singh, R/o Plot No. 80, Krishna Marg, Panipach, Jaipur.

8. Ishwar Prasad Son Of Shri Ayodhya Prasad Singh, R/o Plot No. 5, Ambabari, Jhotwara, Jaipur.

9. Rakesh Son of Shr. Ayodhya Prasad Singh, R/o Plot No. 80, Krishna Marg, Panipach, Jaipur.

10. Vidhya Devi Wife Of Shri Shivji Prasad, Since Deceased Represented By-

10/1 Balkrishan S/o Late Shri Shiv Charan, Aged About 58 Years, R/o 164, Karamchari Colony, College Road, Gangapur City, District Sawaimadhopur.

10/2 Anil Sharma S/o Late Shri Shiv Charan, Aged About 54 Years, R/o Teenpad Karauli.

10/3 Arun Sharma S/o Late Shri Shiv Charan, Aged About 51 Years, C/o Guru Cable Bhudara Bazar, Karauli.

10/4 Smt. Chandra Kanta D/o Late Shri Shiv Charan W/o Sh. Virendra Kumar Sharma, Aged About 62 Years, C/o Bal Bharti School, Keshavpura, Karauli.

11. Chandrakala Devi Wife Of Shri Mahendra Kumar And D/o Shri Ayodhya Prasad Singh, Since Deceased Represented By- 11/1 Mukesh Babu Shukla S/o Shri Mahendra Sharma (Shukla), R/o 35 New Akashvani Colony, Kota (Raj.) 11/2 Mahesh Babu Shukla S/o Shri Mahendra Sharma (Shukla), R/o 20 A Netaji Ki Chakki, Maheshpuri Nivaru Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur

[2023:RJ-JP:21967] (3 of 11) [CW-4559/2012]

Jaipur.

11/3 Nabih Babu Shukla S/o Shri Mahendra Sharma (Shukla), R/o Mishoro Ka Ndada, 352 Chatikna Karauli (Raj.) 11/4 Manju Lata Sharma W/o Praveen Kumar Sharma, R/o 43/c Gali No. 4, Subhash Colony, Kota (Raj.)

12. Kamlesh Kumari Wife Of Shri K.k. Sharma And S/o Shri Ayodhya Prasad Singh, R/o Railway Colony, Kota.

13. Ram Dayal Son Of Shri Ram Narain, R/o Barpada, Karauli.

14. Ramesh Chand Sharma @ Ramesh Lal Sharma, (Since Deceased Represented By-

14/1 Smt. Shankar Bai W/o Ramesh Chand Sharma, Aged About 60 Years, Resident Of Chhoreda Road Mandrail The. Mandrail District Karauli (Raj.) 14/2 Hemlata D/o Ramesh Chand Sharma, Aged About 37 Years, Resident Of Chhoreda Road Mandrail The. Mandrail District Karauli (Raj.) 14/3 Bhuvaneshwar Sharma S/o Ramesh Chand Sharma, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of Chhoreda Road Mandrail The. Mandrail District Karauli (Raj.) 14/4 Ved Prakash Sharma S/o Ramesh Chand Sharma, Resident Of Chhoreda Road Mandrail The. Mandrail District Karauli (Raj.) 14/5 Chhail Behari Sharma S/o Ramesh Chand Sharma, Aged About 22 Years, Resident Of Chhoreda Road Mandrail The. Mandrail District Karauli (Raj.) 14/6 Kapil Sharma S/o Ramesh Chand Sharma, Resident Of Chhoreda Road Mandrail The. Mandrail District Karauli (Raj.) 14/7 Golo Bai D/o Ramesh Chand Sharma, Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of Chhoreda Road Mandrail The. Mandrail District Karauli (Raj.) 14/8 Reman Sharma D/o Ramesh Chand Sharma, Aged About 23 Years, Resident Of Chhoreda Road Mandrail The. Mandrail District Karauli (Raj.)

15. Angur Bai Widow Of Shri Bal Krishan, R/o Hathighata, Kara uli.

16. Hariom Son Of Shri Bal Krishan, R/o Uppadhyapada, Mandrail, Karauli.

17. Janardan Son Of Shri Bal Krishan, R/o Uppadhyapada, Mandrail, Karauli.

18. Laxmi Bai Widow Of Shri Ramji Lal, R/o Uppadhyaypada, Mandrail, Karauli.

[2023:RJ-JP:21967] (4 of 11) [CW-4559/2012]

19. Prem D/o Shri Ramji Lal And Wife Of Shri Ramesh Chand Sharma, R/o Galale, Tehsil Savalgarh (Raj.)

20. Bhagwati D/o Shri Ramji Lal And Wife Of Shri Uma Shankar, R/o Jamudi Dukawali, Tehsil Virpur (Mp)

21. Vedvati D/o Ramji Lal And W/o Hari Shankar, R/o Masalpur, Karauli.

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R. K. Mathur, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Raghvendra Singh Khichi For Respondent(s) : Mr. J. P. Goyal, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Jyoti Swami Mr. S. K. Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sarthak Saxena Mr. Akshay Sharma, AGC

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

Order

Reserved on 31/07/2023 Pronoucned on 18/09/2023

1. The instant writ petition is filed under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India against the impugned order dated

21.12.2011 passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer in Appeal No.

722/2006/Karauli whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioners

against the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority dated

02.12.2005 was dismissed.

2. The ineluctable and concise factual narrative of the instant

petition, necessary for adjudicating upon the lis in question, is

noted herein-under:

2/1 That the land under dispute, bearing old Khasra Nos. 590,

590-Min and 590, constituted the religious muafi land of one Sh.

[2023:RJ-JP:21967] (5 of 11) [CW-4559/2012]

Murari Lal s/o Sh. Laxmi Narain, as per the Jamabandi of Samwat

Year 2010-2013.

2/2 That Sh. Jeevan Lal s/o Sh. Madan Brahmin was the sub-

tenant of the said land under dispute.

2/3 That the old Khasra Nos. 590, 590-Min and 591 were

converted into new Khasra Nos. 733, 734 and 735 in the last

settlement, as per the Jamabandi of Samwat Year 2015.

2/4 Correspondingly, distinct land admeasuring 68 Bighas 19

Biswas was also in the Khatedari of Sh. Jeevan Lal.

2/5 That on 22.12.1959, on the basis of the alleged statement of

Sh. Jeevan Lal, the land under dispute, was recorded jointly in the

name of Sh. Jeevan Lal s/o Sh. Madan Lal along with the brothers

of Madan Lal i.e. Sh. Ram Ratan, Sh. Panna Lal and Sh. Ram

Narain, who happened to be the sons of one Sh. Shiv Lal.

2/6 That on 24.06.1991, Sh. Ayodhya Prasad s/o Sh. Ram Narain

filed a suit for division of the complete holding under Section 53 of

the Rajasthan Tenancy Act of 1955, including therein the land

under dispute, in relation to which, he claimed a 1/4th share.

2/7 That on 26.12.1992, the petitioners filed their written

statement in the said suit and denied the averments made

therein, especially on the ground that the land under dispute was

not ancestral/joint property. Rather, it was the absolute khatedari

land of Sh. Jeevan Lal. In this regard, the petitioners had

contended before the authorities below that Sh. Jeevan Lal, being

the sub-tenant of Sh. Murari Lal in relation to the muafi land,

became its absolute khatedar under Section 9 of the Rajasthan

Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagir Act, 1952 (for brevity, Act

of 1952).

[2023:RJ-JP:21967] (6 of 11) [CW-4559/2012]

2/8 That on 12.03.2004, the learned trial decreed the suit in

favour of the plaintiff-defendant Sh. Ayodhya Prasad.

2/9 That being aggrieved, the petitioners preferred an appeal

before the learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Sawai Madhopur.

However, vide order dated 02.12.2005, the appeal came to be

dismissed.

2/10 That thereafter, the petitioners further appealed the order

dated 02.12.2005 before the learned Board of Revenue. However,

the said appeal was also dismissed vide impugned order dated

21.12.2011.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the

orders passed by the authorities below dated 12.03.2004,

02.12.2005 and 21.12.2011 are against the settled factual

position of the case at hand and therefore, the same deserve to be

quashed and set aside. In order to substantiate upon the said

submission, it was argued that the authorities below passed the

impugned orders, based solely on the alleged statement of Sh.

Jeevan Lal dated 22.12.1959, in the absence of any documentary

evidence produced by the plaintiff-defendants in connection

therewith. Learned counsel further placed reliance upon the

Jamabandi (marked as 'Annexure-1') and averred that Khasra

Nos. 733, 734 and 735 admeasuring 12 Bighas 1 Biswa was the

religious muafi land of Sh. Murari Lal, of which Sh. Jeevan Lal was

a sub-tenant. Therefore, by virtue of Section 9 of the Act of 1952,

he became the absolute khatedar of the said land.

4. In light of the submissions made herein-above, learned

counsel for the petitioners argued that as a consequent result of

Sh. Jeevan Lal becoming the absolute khatedar of the said land on

[2023:RJ-JP:21967] (7 of 11) [CW-4559/2012]

account of him being the sub-tenant therein, by no stretch of any

imagination, could the said land be considered as the ancestral

land of Sh. Shiv Lal or his sons. Therefore, the impugned orders

insofar as they took within the ambit of division the land under

dispute, of which the absolute khatedar was Sh. Jeevan Lal, need

to be quashed and set aside. In support of the contentions raised

herein-above, reliance was placed upon Idan vs. State of

Rajasthan & Anr: 2001 (1) RRT 244, Geega Ram and Anr.

vs. The Board of Revenue and Ors.: 2008 (1) RRT 151 and

Nisar Mohd. vs. The State of Rajasthan and Ors: 2009 (2)

RRT 1072.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has

submitted that the instant petition deserves to be dismissed,

solely on the ground that under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India, the Court must only limit its findings in respect of whether

or not any palpable error of law has crept in the orders impugned.

In this regard, it was submitted that the three authorities below,

vide orders dated 12.03.2004, 02.12.2005 and 21.12.2011 have

rendered concurrent findings. Moreover, the disputed questions of

fact have also been put to rest by the authorities below. Even

otherwise, no legal question(s) arise for the consideration of this

Court as the learned authorities below have passed the orders

impugned after having taken into consideration the material

evidence available on record.

6. In order to substantiate upon the submissions made above,

learned counsel argued that the disputed land bearing Khasra Nos.

733, 734 and 735 admeasuring 12 Bighas 1 Biswa along with

other land admeasuring 68 Bighas 19 Biswa was in the joint

[2023:RJ-JP:21967] (8 of 11) [CW-4559/2012]

cultivation and possession of the father of the petitioners i.e. Sh.

Jeevan Lal along with the father of the respondents and their

brothers. However, during the settlement held in the Year 2015,

inadvertently, the disputed land was recorded in the sub-tenancy

of Sh. Jeevan Lal for a short duration of time whereas, the

remaining 68 Bighas 19 Biswas remained in his tenancy. Hence,

the factum of Sh. Jeevan Lal becoming the absolute khatedar of

the land under dispute is wholly erroneous, especially on account

of the joint cultivatory possession of the said land by the fathers

of the petitioners as well as the respondents along with their

brothers. Furthermore, learned counsel also placed reliance upon

Exhibit-R/1, which also formed part of the record before the three

courts below. As per the said document, in the Year 1991, the

revenue records were updated and a combined jamabandi

document reflected Khasra Nos. 733, 734 and 735 to be a

combined and/or joint property of the petitioners as well as the

respondents. In support of his submissions, learned counsel

placed reliance upon the dictum of this Court as enunciated in

Nath Ram and Ors. vs. Bhika and Ors.: WLC (UC) 1979 468

and S.B. CWP No. 9798/2016 titled as Amar Chand vs.

Jitendra and Ors.

7. Heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both

the sides, scanned the record of the present petition and perused

the judgments cited at Bar.

8. It is trite law that there is limited scope of interference with

a well-reasoned order while exercising the jurisdiction under

Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is a well settled principle

of law that in the guise of exercising jurisdiction under Article 227

[2023:RJ-JP:21967] (9 of 11) [CW-4559/2012]

of the Constitution of India, the High Court cannot convert itself

into a court of appeal. It is equally well settled, that the

supervisory jurisdiction extends to keeping the subordinate

tribunals/courts within the limits of their authority and seeing that

they obey the law. It has been held that though the powers under

Article 227 are wide, they must be exercised sparingly and only to

keep the subordinate courts and tribunals within the bounds of

their authority and not to correct mere erros. Reliance in this

respect can be placed on the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court as

enunciated in Mohd. Inam vs. Sanjay Kumar Singhal and

Ors.: (2020) 7 SCC 327.

9. Upon a considered perusal of the impugned orders, it is

analyzed that the learned courts below have duly taken note of

the following stipulations/facts, necessary for adjudicating upon

the lis in question, which are re-iterated herein-under:

9/1 That the petitioners as well as the respondents are close

relatives of one another, being the descendants of Sh. Shiv Narain,

who had four sons namely Madan Lal, Ram Ratan, Panna Lal and

Ram Narain.

9/2 That of the four brothers, Sh. Madan Lal was survived by one

Sh. Jeevan Lal; Sh. Ram Ratan was survived by two daughters;

Sh. Panna Lal died issueless and Sh. Ram Narain was survived by

two sons. The contesting parties to the lis in question are the

descendants of Sh. Jeevan Lal i.e. petitioners and the descendants

of Sh. Ram Narain i.e. respondents.

9/3 That as per the Jamabandi for the Samwat Year 2014-2015,

Khasra Nos. 733, 734 and 735 stood jointly in the common name

of the petitioners as well as the respondents. By placing reliance

[2023:RJ-JP:21967] (10 of 11) [CW-4559/2012]

upon Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, it was also noted

that whenever any person produces jamabandi in his name, there

is a presumption that he is the recorded khatedar of that land.

The burden lies on the person who challenges the jamabandi to

prove that there was an error in the jamabandi or that the entries

were obtained by frivolous means or by fraud.

9/4 That as per Annexure-6 i.e. the statement made by Sh.

Jeevan Lal dated 22.12.1959, it is admitted that the property in

question belongs to both himself as well as his uncles (sons of

Shiv Lal i.e. Ram Ratan and Ram Narain), in shares of 1/3 and 2/3

respectively.

9/5 That the land under dispute was ancestral land, in the

collective and joint cultivatory possession of the petitioners as well

as the respondents.

10. In the opinion of this Court, the learned Board of Revenue

has passed a well-reasoned speaking order and after consideration

of material aspects, arrived at a logical conclusion. This Court is in

complete agreement with the reasoning adopted by the learned

Board of Revenue. There is no violation of principles of natural

justice and no palpable error has crept in the order impugned,

thereby precluding intefrence under Article 227 of the of the

Constitution of India.

11. In light of the reasoning adopted by the learned Board of

Revenue, especially the material stipulations as noted above, and

in light of the observations made herein-above, this Court is not

inclined to interfere with the findings rendered by the learned

Board of Revenue.

[2023:RJ-JP:21967] (11 of 11) [CW-4559/2012]

12. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed. Pending

applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(SAMEER JAIN),J

Pooja /130

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)