Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Lrs Of Smt. Jeevo @ Jeewani Bai vs Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner And ... on 8 October, 2025
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:41932-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.2/2011
LRs Of Jeevo @ Jeevani Bai widow of Mehar Singh B/c Bawri R/o
Mukhanwali Tehsil Sri Karanpur, Distt. Sri Ganganagar.
1.1 Karam Singh S/o Late Smt. Jeevo @ Jeevani Bai R/o
Mukkanwali Tehsil Sri Karanpur Presently residing at chak 59 F
Tehsil Sri Karanpur Distt. Sri Gangangar.
Appellant
V/s
1- The Divisonal Commissioner Bikaner Camp at Sri Ganganaar.
2- The District Collector Cum Chief Settlement Commissioner, Sri
Gangangar.
3- The District Rehabilitation Officer, Sri Ganganagar.
4- Lrs of Smt. Rajo @ Raj Kaur W/o Sh. Chetram Since dead R/o
House no. 3, Street No. 3 Indria Colony, Sri Gangangar.
4.1 Maya D/o Late Bhagwani the respondent no. 6 and niece
of respondent no. 4 B/c Bawari R/o Chak 19 APD Banda Colony,
Tehsil Anoopgarh Distt. Sri Gangangar. ( Now dead )
4.2 Seva Singh S/o Late Bhagwani The respondent no. 6 and
niece of respondent no. 4 by B/c Bawari R/o Chak 19 APD, Banda
Colony, Tehsil Anoopgarh District Sri Gangangar.
5- Lrs of Mahendra Kaur W/o Sh. Santa Singh Since dead by
Caste Bawri R/o Chak 59 FB, Tehsil Sri Karanpur District
Srigangangar.
5.1 Bhag Singh S/o Late Santa Singh and Mahendra Kaur R/o
Chak 59 FB, Tehsil Sri Karanpur Distt. Sri Gangangar.
5.2 Aatri D/o Late Santa Singh and Mahendra Kaur R/o Chak
59 FB Tehsil Sri Karanpur District Sri Gangangar.
5.3 Paro D/o Late Santa Singh and Mahendra Kaur R/o Chak
59 FB Tehsil Sri Karanpur District Sri Gangangar.
6. Lrs of Smt. Bhagwani W/o Sh. Krishan Simce dead by Caste
(Uploaded on 09/10/2025 at 12:05:46 PM)
(Downloaded on 09/10/2025 at 09:56:02 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:41932-DB] (2 of 6) [SAW-2/2011]
Bawri R/o Chak 19 APD, Banda colony, Tehsil Anoopgarh Distt. Sri
Gangangar.
6.1 Seva Sungh S/o Late Bhagwani the respondent no. 6 by
Caste Bawari R/o Chak 19 APD Banda Colony, Tehsil Anoopgarh
Distt. Sri Gangangar.
Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. V.K. Aggarwal
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sudhir Sharma
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA
Judgment
Reserved on :: 17/09/2025
Pronounced on :: 08/10/2025
Per Mr. Bipin Gupta, J.
1. The present special appeal has been filed against the order
dated 31.08.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court
whereby the writ petition of the present appellant was dismissed
and the judgment dated 29.03.1997 passed by the Divisional
Commissioner, Bikaner camp Ganganagar was upheld.
2. An agreement executed on 11.11.1960 in sole name of Jeevo
- wife of Mehar Singh and the Sanad in favour of Jeevo dated
10.09.1969 were challenged under Section 24 of the Displaced
Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Act of 1954'). The revision petitioners
contended that the land in dispute was originally allotted to Mehar
Singh, and after his death, his widow, Jeevo, remarried one Sher
Singh and therefore, the allotment in the name of Mehar Singh
was cancelled. However, based on the suggestion of the
(Uploaded on 09/10/2025 at 12:05:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:41932-DB] (3 of 6) [SAW-2/2011]
Panchayat, the Officer on Special Duty (OSD) recorded that, since
Mehar Singh had three minor daughters at the time, therefore, 12
bighas and 10 biswas of land was retained for three minor
daughters and the remaining allotment was cancelled. Since the
revision petitioners were minor, the land was being taken care of
by their mother, Jeevo, and her husband Sher Singh but
subsequently got issued the Sanad in her individual name,
therefore they prayed that the land be recorded in the names of
the three daughters by correcting the Sanad, which had been
issued exclusively in the name of Jeevo.
3. The revision petition filed by Mahendra Kaur and Rajoo was
rejected by the Revisional Authority vide order dated 09.10.1991.
This order was challenged before the Divisional Commissioner,
Bikaner (Camp at Sri Ganganagar), who, vide order dated
29.03.1997, upon perusal of the Basic Register Record, found that
the names of Bhagwani, Mahendra Kaur, and Rajoo, along with
Jeevo, were entered in the said record. This entry existed because
the Officer on Special Duty (OSD) had not cancelled the entire
allotment made in favour of Mehar Singh taking into consideration
the fact that after his death he was survived by three minor
daughters. Therefore, 12 bighas and 10 biswas of land allotment
was kept intact.
4. Based on this finding, the Divisional Commissioner, while
remanding the matter to the Chief Settlement Officer, also
cancelled Sanad No. 8033 and directed that a fresh Sanad be
issued in accordance with law in respect of the disputed land.
5. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred a writ petition
before this Court being S.B. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.2111/1997
(Uploaded on 09/10/2025 at 12:05:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:41932-DB] (4 of 6) [SAW-2/2011]
which was rejected vide judgment dated 31.08.2009 against
which the present special appeal (writ) has been preferred.
6. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the land was not
allotted to Mehar Singh, but was allotted to her in her individual
capacity, and an agreement to that effect was also executed on
11.11.1960 upon payment of consideration. It was further
submitted that the consideration was paid by her, and therefore,
the Sanad was issued exclusively in her favour on 10.09.1969.
Thus, the orders passed by the Divisional Commissioner as well as
by the learned Single Judge are erroneous and deserve to be
quashed and set aside.
7. It was also argued by the learned counsel for the appellant
that the entry in the Basic Register Record holds no value and that
the sale was made exclusively in the name of Jeevo. Therefore,
the Divisional Commissioner and the learned Single Judge have
committed an illegality by basing their findings solely on the basis
of entries in the Basic Register, and accordingly, prayed that the
appeal may be allowed.
8. Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted
that the land was originally allotted to Mehar Singh. After his
death, the Officer on Special Duty (OSD), considering that Mehar
Singh was survived by minor daughters and a widow, thought it
proper not to cancel the entire allotment but to keep the allotment
intact for 12 bighas and 10 biswas of land for benefit of three
minor daughters namely Bhagwani, Rajoo, and Mahendra Kaur
along with the widow, Jeevo.
9. It was further submitted by the counsel for the respondents
that the land was never allotted individually in the name of Jeevo.
(Uploaded on 09/10/2025 at 12:05:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:41932-DB] (5 of 6) [SAW-2/2011]
However, Jeevo cleverly obtained the Sanad exclusively in her own
name and, after remarrying Sher Singh did not take care and
wrongfully appropriated the land. Since there is a right in the land
as it was allotted for the benefit of three minor daughters along
with widow of Mehar Singh, their rights could not be curtailed
merely because the Sanad was issued exclusively in the name of
Jeevo.
10. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
11. The appellant has failed to show any Basic Register entry
establishing that the allotment was made exclusively in her favour.
Since the appellant has not placed before this Court the
proceedings of allotment to show that the land was allotted
exclusively for her individual benefit, she cannot claim any right to
the land merely on the basis that the Sanad was issued in her
name. Moreso, the Basic Register which was perused by the
Divisional Commissioner and not disputed by the present appellant
contains an entry of 12 bighas and 10 biswas of land to be allotted
in the names of three minor daughters along with Jeevo.
Therefore, this Court finds that merely issue of Sanad in individual
name will not effect the rights of three minor daughters.
12. This Court finds that the Act of 1954 is a beneficiary Act
which provides benefits to persons who were displaced. The
deceased Mehar Singh was found to be a displaced person, and
accordingly, land measuring 23 bighas and 11 biswas was allotted
to him. However, the allotment was subsequently reduced to 12
bighas and 10 biswas upon finding that Mehar Singh had expired,
leaving behind three minor daughters and his widow, Jeevo. As
recorded in the Basic Register, the beneficiary of the allotment was
(Uploaded on 09/10/2025 at 12:05:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:41932-DB] (6 of 6) [SAW-2/2011]
not exclusively Jeevo; rather, the three minor daughters were also
recorded as beneficiaries of the displaced person. The mere
issuance of the Sanad in the name of one of the successors cannot
create an exclusive individual right in favour of Jeevo, as the land
was originally allotted to Mehar Singh, who was found to be a
displaced person. After his death, his three minor daughters,
along with his widow Jeevo, became his legal successors.
Therefore, the issuance of the Sanad in an individual name, was
contrary to the entries in the Basic Register. Consequently, both
the Divisional Commissioner and the learned Single Judge
committed no error in passing the impugned orders so as to call
for interference in the present special appeal (writ).
13. In view of the above, the present special appeal (writ) is
dismissed with no order as to costs.
14. Stay petition and pending applications, if any, stand disposed
of.
(BIPIN GUPTA),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
193-praveen/-
(Uploaded on 09/10/2025 at 12:05:46 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
