Municipal Board, Gangapur, ... vs B.O.R. And Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 6876 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:27773]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2564/1997

Municipal Board, Gangapur, Bhilwara

----Petitioner Versus Board of Revenue for Rajasthan at Ajmer & Ors.

                                                                  ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)           :    Mr. Paramveer Singh Champawat
For Respondent(s)           :    Mr. Tribhuvan Gupta

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Judgment

Reserved on 23/08/2023 Pronounced on 06/09/2023

1. This writ petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India claiming the following reliefs:

"Therefore it is prayed that the writ petition may kindly be allowed, impugned orders dated 07.10.1996 annexures 1, 2 & 3 passed by the respondent No.1 to 3 Board of Revenue and trial & appellate court be set aside, or matter be remanded back to the trial court.

(i) A writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus or certiorari may be considered just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case be issued.

(ii) costs of the writ petition be awarded."

2. As per the pleaded facts, one Kalu Ram (plaintiff - father of

the respondents no.5 & 6) who had purchased a piece of land in

the year 1959 from numberdar, in arazi number 2806 rakba 2

biswa in Village Merooni, Tehsil Sahada Mukam Gangapur, and

[2023:RJ-JD:27773] (2 of 6) [CW-2564/1998]

accordingly, mutation entries were made in the revenue records; a

civil suit bearing no. 17/91 was instituted by him on 08.06.1970

before the learned Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO), Gangapur for

declaration of title and permanent injunction against the present

petitioner (Municipal Board) and respondent no.4 (Tehsildar,

Sahada, Head Office, Gangapur) as on 06.06.1970, the petitioner

had decided to sell the above-said piece of land in auction by

dividing the same into two plots.

2.1. Thereafter, ten issues were framed and the learned SDO

gave its decision in favour of the plaintiff, vide order dated

28.03.1995, while holding that the plaintiff had been in possession

of the land in question for more than twelve years, and thus on

the basis of the adverse possession, had become the owner of the

land. Subsequently, an appeal was filed by the petitioner before

learned Revenue Appellate Authority (RAA), Bhilwara and after

considering the material available on record before it, the learned

RAA vide order dated 29.01.1996, upheld the judgment and

decree passed by the learned SDO, and further held that the

petitioner had no locus to agitate the matter, as the plaintiff was

the khatedar of the land in question. Aggrieved thereby, the

petitioner preferred a second appeal before the learned Board of

Revenue (BoR) for Rajasthan, Ajmer, which was dismissed on

07.10.1996 at the admission stage itself, with an observation that

there was no need of interference, given the concurrent findings of

both the learned revenue authorities below. Hence, the present

petition has been preferred claiming the afore-quoted reliefs.

[2023:RJ-JD:27773] (3 of 6) [CW-2564/1998]

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner

submitted that in the year 1959, the numberdar had no right to

sell the land in question to the ancestors of respondent no.5 & 6

i.e. to the plaintiff, as the land in question was earlier a part of the

Gwalior State, and after coming into force of the Rajasthan Land

Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952, the land in question

merged with the State of Rajasthan.

3.1. In furtherance, it was submitted that in the year 1955, after

the Rajasthan Tenancy Act came into force, the numberdari

system was abolished, and thus, the numberdar had no right

whatsoever to sell or purchase any land, thus a sale deed

executed in 1959 was void-ab-intio in the eye of law; hence, the

respondents no.5 & 6 had no title over the land in question.

3.2. It was further submitted that both the learned SDO as well

as learned RAA had relied on the principles of adverse possession,

but the same were not applicable in the present case, as the land

in question was a government land, and for the principle of

adverse possession to be applicable, the possession must be fro

more than 30 years.

3.3. Learned counsel further submitted that the learned BoR

refused to interfere with the concurrent findings of both the

learned revenue authorities below; however even in second

appeal, if any substantial question of law arises, then the second

appellate court i.e. BoR, is required to deal with the same. As per

learned counsel, in the present case, the substantial question of

law involved was whether the adverse possession of more than 12

years was applicable in case of a government land or not, but the

[2023:RJ-JD:27773] (4 of 6) [CW-2564/1998]

same was not duly dealt with by the learned revenue authorities

below.

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 as per the proclamation

issued by the District Collector, Bhilwara bearing no.13/15-11-

1959 under the Rajasthan Zamidari and Biswedari Abolition Act,

1959; the said Act was abolished with effect from 15.11.1959, and

thus the estates of the Zamidars vested in the State Government

from the said date, whereas the sale deed in question was

executed at a much earlier date i.e. on 29.05.1959.

4.1. Learned counsel further placed reliance on the order dated

26/27.08.1975 passed by the Tehsildar Sahada, Gangapur in case

no. 17/91 (LRs' of Kalu Ram v. Administrator, Nagar Palika,

Gangapur) by which the land in question was ordered to be

regularized in favour of the respondent no.5, on receipt of the

amount to be deposited with the State for conversion of the land

in question.

4.2. It was further submitted that all the three learned revenue

authorities below had recorded concurrent findings in favour of the

plaintiff, while declaring him to be the owner of the land in

question.

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

record of the case.

6. This Court observes that the father (plaintiff) of the

respondents no.5 & 6 had purchased land in question in the year

1959 from numberdar and the said land became a part of the

[2023:RJ-JD:27773] (5 of 6) [CW-2564/1998]

State of Rajasthan in pursuance of the Rajasthan Territorial

Divisions Ordinance (XX of 1949) in the year 1950 and the plaintiff

was in possession of the said land for almost 12 years, before the

petitioner decided to auction the land in question by diving the

same into two plots; aggrieved of this action, the plaintiff filed a

civil suit before the SDO and the decision was given in his favour;

thereafter the matter was appealed before RAA and BoR as well

however both the courts gave their decision in favour of the

plaintiff.

7. This Court is conscious of the observations made by the SDO

wherein the decision was given in favour of the plaintiff, while

holding that even though in the year 1950, the land in question

had become part of the State of Rajasthan, yet the numberdar

who had sold the said land, was called Pattidar and was seen as a

Khatedar, and in accordance of the prevalent laws was eligible to

sell the land in question; further as far as the question of

possession of the plaintiff since the year 1959 was concerned, the

Tehsildar himself had ascertained the same by his reply and that

the plaintiff was in possession for 12 years, resulting in ownership

through adverse possession as well; also the land in question was

an agricultural land and after renaming on 15.06.1977 was

converted into Aabadi land; thus, it was clear that the petitioner

had no right to auction the land in 1970 as it was not part of

Aabadi land.

8. This Court further observes that there are concurrent

findings of the learned revenue authorities below in favour of the

plaintiff, wherein the learned RAA had upheld the decision of the

[2023:RJ-JD:27773] (6 of 6) [CW-2564/1998]

learned SDO and further held that the petitioner had no locus

standi to contest the matter; also the learned BoR was in

agreement with the findings of the decision of learned SDO as well

as the learned RAA.

9. 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.

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

applications stand disposed of.

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.

SKant/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)