[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Heera Lal vs Gulab Singh (2026:Rj-Jd:15890) on 7 April, 2026

Author: Sudesh Bansal

Bench: Sudesh Bansal

[2026:RJ-JD:15890]

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                        JODHPUR
                S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18995/2025
Heera Lal, Aged About 70 Years, Resident of Bhadsoda, Tehsil
Bhadesar, District Chittorgarh (Raj.).
                                                                    ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
1.       Gulab Singh, Resident of Bhadsoda, Tehsil Bhadesar,
         District Chittorgarh (Raj.).
2.       State of Rajasthan through Tehsildar Bhadesar, District
         Chittorgarh.
3.       State of Rajasthan through Up-Tehsildar Bhadsoda, Tehsil
         Bhadesar, District Chittorgarh.
4.       Balu Lal S/o Partha, Resident of Tandi Khera, Dhaneth,
         Tehsil Bhadesar, District Chittorgarh.
                                                                 ----Respondents
                              Connected With
                S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18993/2025
Heera Lal S/o Adopted Lakhma, Aged About 70 Years, Resident
of Bhadsoda, Tehsil Bhadesar, District Chittorgarh (Raj.).
                                                                    ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
1.       Gulab Singh S/o Madhulal, Resident of Bhadsoda, Tehsil
         Bhadesar, District Chittorgarh (Raj.).
2.       State of Rajasthan through Tehsildar Bhadesar, District
         Chittorgarh.
3.       Balu S/o Pratha, Resident of Tandi Khera, Dhaneth, Tehsil
         Bhadesar, District Chittorgarh.
4.       LRs of Chenaram, S/o Lala Mali
4/1.     Shankar Lal S/o Chena Ram, Resident of Bhadsoda, Tehsil
         Bhadesar, District Chittorgarh (Raj.).
4/2.     Bhairu Lal S/o Chena Ram, Resident of Bhadsoda, Tehsil
         Bhadesar, District Chittorgarh (Raj.).
4/3.     Devnarayan S/o Chena Ram, Resident of Bhadsoda, Tehsil
         Bhadesar, District Chittorgarh (Raj.).
4/4.     Kanku W/o Chenaram, Resident of Bhadsoda, Tehsil
         Bhadesar, District Chittorgarh (Raj.).
4/5.     Kamla W/o Govind Ram, Resident of Arniya Path, Tehsil
         And District Chittorgarh (Raj.).
4/6.     Geeta W/o Ramesh, Resident Of Lavana, Tehsil Bhadesar,
         District Chittorgarh (Raj.).
5.       LRs of Meera Bai, Spouse of Heera Lal -
5/1.     Bagdi Ram S/o Late Meera Bai Spouse of Heera Lal,
         Resident   of   Bhadsoda, Tehsil Bhadesar, District
         Chittorgarh (Raj.).



                      (Uploaded on 08/04/2026 at 03:58:13 PM)
                     (Downloaded on 08/04/2026 at 05:10:53 PM)
 [2026:RJ-JD:15890]                   (2 of 8)                       [CW-18995/2025]


5/2.     Mohan S/o Late Meera Bai Spouse of Heera Lal, Resident
         of Bhadsoda, Tehsil Bhadesar, District Chittorgarh (Raj.).
5/3.     Ravi S/o Late Meera Bai Spouse of Heera Lal, Resident of
         Bhadsoda, Tehsil Bhadesar, District Chittorgarh (Raj.).
5/4.     Jyoti D/o Late Meera Bai Spouse of Heera Lal, Resident of
         Bhadsoda, Tehsil Bhadesar, District Chittorgarh (Raj.).
5/5.     Goti D/o Late Meera Bai Spouse of Heera Lal, Resident of
         Bhadsoda, Tehsil Bhadesar, District Chittorgarh (Raj.).
                                                                 ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Manas Ranchhor Khatri
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Sushil Solanki


        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

Order 07/04/2026

1. In both the writ petitions, the judgment impugned dated

12.09.2025 passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer, is common,

hence, both writ petitions have been heard together and would

stand decided by this common order.

2. Petitioner is plaintiff, who filed a Revenue Suit No. 413/2010

claiming khatedari rights in respect of Khasra No. 759 & 816

sitauted at Village Badsoda, Tehsil Bhadesar, District Chittorgarh.

This suit was decreed by Sub Divisional Officer, Bhadesar vide

judgment dated 28.09.2020.

3. Another Revenue Suit No. 62/2021 was filed by petitioner

claiming khatedari rights and injunction in respect of land of

Khasra No. 929 situated at Village Badsoda, Tehsil Bhadesar,

District Chittorgarh. This suit was decreed by Sub Divisional

Officer, Bhadesar based on the judgment dated 28.09.2020, vide

judgment dated 10.06.2021. For ready reference the operative

portion of judgments dated 28.09.2020 and 10.06.2021 is being

reproduced hereunder:-

(Uploaded on 08/04/2026 at 03:58:13 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:15890] (3 of 8) [CW-18995/2025]

Judgment dated 28.09.2020 "vuqrks"k %& pwafd rudh uEcj 1 o rudh uEcj 2 oknh ds i{k esa fu.khZr gS rFkk rudh uEcj 3 izfroknh la[;k 4 ds fo:) fu.khZr gS pwafd mDr nkok /kkjk 53 dh nkn ds lanHkZ esa Hkh izLrqr gS ijUrq bl ij dksbZ rudh bl izdj.k esa dk;e ugha dh xbZ uk gh oknh us caVokjsa ds ckcr vafre cgl esa gh dksbZ dFku fd;k blfy, caVokjsa dh nkn [kkfjt dh tkrh gS ijUrq 'ks"k nkn ds lanHkZ esa oknh us viuk okn c[kwch lkfcr djk;k gS blfy, oknh fookfnr vkjkth uEcj iqjkuk 759 o 816 dh [kkrsnkjh izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gSA vr% okn oknh drbZ fMØh fd;k tkrk gS ,oa ekStk HknlksMk dh lkfcd vkjkth uEcj 759 jdck 1 ch?kk 18 fcLok o vkjkth uEcj 816 jdck 13 fcLok Hkwfe ls izfroknh la[;k 04 xqykc flag eqrcUuk ek/koyky ukgj dk uke jktLo fjdksMZ ls foyksfir fd;k tkdj oknh dks mDr vkjkth;kr esa 1@2 fgLlk Hkwfe ds [kkrsnkj ,oa izfroknh la[;k 1@1 yxk;r 1@6 o izfroknh la[;k 2 o 3 dks 'ks"k 1@2 fgLlk Hkwfe dk [kkrsnkj ?kksf"kr fd;k tkrk gSA rn~uqlkj jktLo jsdkMZ esa vey njken fd;k tkosA blh vk'k; dk ipkZ fMØh vyx ls eqfrZc fd;k tkosA "

Judgment dated 10.06.2021 "izdj.k ntZ jftLVj fd;k tkdj izfroknhx.k dks tfj;s lEeu ryc fd;k x;kA cjkst is'kh izfroknh Øekad 1 ckotwn lwpuk vuqifLFkr jgus ls muds fo:) dk;Zokgh ,d rjQk fd;s tkus ds vkns'k ikfjr fd;s x;sA vr% okn drkbZ fMØh fd;k tkrk gS fd ,oa ekstk HkknlksMk dh vkjkth ua0 929 jdck 2 fcLok yxkuh 8 iSlk ftl ij oknh dk mlds iwoZtks ds tekus ls dCtk pyk vk jgk gS] blfy;s oknh bl tehu dk [kkrsnkj dk'rdkj gS vkSj jktLo vfHkys[kksa esa oknh viuk uke ntZ djkus dk vf/kdkjh gS] blfy;s oknh [kkrsnkj ?kksf"kr fd;k tkrk gSA rn~uqlkj jktLo jsdkMZ esa vey njken fd;k tkosA blh vk'k; dk ipkZ fMØh vyx ls eqfrZc fd;k tkos tkosaA "

4. Both judgments dated 28.09.2020 and 10.06.2021 were put

to challenge by the private respondent- Gulab Singh by way of

filing two separate Appeals before the Revenue Appellate

Authority. Both Appeals were allowed vide common judgment

dated 02.08.2024 and both judgments and decree were set aside

and both Revenue Suits filed by petitioner were dismissed.

Petitioner has preferred two Civil Second Appeals thereagainst

before the Board of Revenue, which have been dismissed vide

(Uploaded on 08/04/2026 at 03:58:13 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:15890] (4 of 8) [CW-18995/2025]

common judgment dated 12.09.2025 impugned herein in these

writ petitions.

5. The contention of counsel for petitioner is that the Revenue

Appellate Authority has erred in setting aside the judgments and

decree dated 28.09.2020 and 10.06.2021, without recording

issuewise findings. His further submission is that khatedari rights

upon the predecessor of Gulab Singh were conferred based on the

registered sale deed dated 10.10.1945, which indeed is a

fabricated and false document, hence, Sub Divisional Officer

rightly quashed the khatedari rights of Gulab Singh and

consequently, khatedari rights of lands in question were declared

in favour of petitioner. His further submission is that the Board of

Revenue has also committed jurisdictional error in affirming the

judgment dated 02.08.2024 passed by the Revenue Appellate

Authority.

To support his contention, counsel for petitioner has relied

upon the judgment dated 07.07.2025 passed by the Coordinate

Bench of this Court at Jaipur Bench in S.B. Civil Writ Petition

No. 10901/2022: Dheersingh & Ors. Vs. Smt. Rajkaur,

wherein it has been held that the Appellate Court is supposed to

pass a reasoned judgment keeping in mind the requirements of

Order 41 Rule 31 CPC, as it is a mandatory requirement of law

and non-compliance of the procedure contained in Order 41 Rule

31 CPC by the Appellate Court renders the judgment bad in law.

6. Per contra, cousel appearing on behalf of private

respondents submits that sale deed dated 10.10.1945 was made

by Moda, grandfather of petitioner, and based on that sale deed,

the khatedari rights of lands in question were conferred in favour

(Uploaded on 08/04/2026 at 03:58:13 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:15890] (5 of 8) [CW-18995/2025]

of Madholal, adopted father of respondent- Gulab Singh. His

submission is that the sale deed dated 10.10.1945 was never

challenged by the petitioner and the findings of Sub Divisional

Officer in respect of the registered sale deed that same is

fabricated and false are without jurisdiction, which have rightly

been quashed by the Revenue Appellate Authority and have been

affirmed by the Board of Revenue. He further submits that the

petitioner could not establish his possession and khatedari rights,

hence, declaration in his favour by learned SDO, was made

arbitrarily and without any cogent evidence. Hence, impugned

judgment of Board of Revenue does not warrant any interference.

7. Having considered the rival contentions of both parties and

after perusal of the impugned judgments, this Court finds that the

Sub Divisional Officer while declaring the khatedari rights in favour

of petitioner plaintiff, has fundamentally considered the legality

and validity of sale deed dated 10.10.1945 and held that the sale

deed is not legible as much as does not inspire confidence, rather

treated the sale deed to be false and fabricated. The Sub

Divisional Officer has nowhere discussed the evidence so adduced

by the petitioner-plaintiff to establish his khatedari rights over the

lands in question. This Court is of the considered opinion that the

findings recorded by the Sub Divisional Officer in respect of

registered sale deed dated 10.10.1945, which was not at all in

question, were without jurisdiction. Further, mere treating the sale

deed as false and fabricated ipso facto do not confer any khatedari

rights upon the petitioner unless not established by evidence. The

judgment passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, is silent as to on

(Uploaded on 08/04/2026 at 03:58:13 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:15890] (6 of 8) [CW-18995/2025]

what basis the khatedari rights in favour of petitioner were

declared.

8. In addition to above, this Court has noticed that the

registered sale deed dated 10.10.1945 was executed by Moda,

grandfather of petitioner, and based on that sale deed, name of

adopted father of Gulab Singh i.e. Madho Lal was entered into the

Revenue Record, which was never assailed by Moda during his

lifetime. The petitioner-plaintiff, without assailing/ questioning the

sale deed dated 10.10.1945 claimed khatedari rights in that land,

already sold by his grandfather. This fact has been noticed by the

Revenue Appellate Authority as well as by the Board of Revenue,

hence, the judgment passed by the Sub Divisional Officer,

declaring khatedari rights in favour of petitioner, in the teeth of

registered sale deed dated 10.10.1945 made by his grandfather,

has been held to be illegal and perverse, and has been set aside.

9. As far as contention of counsel for petitioner that the

Appellate Authority did not pass issuewise findings, this Court

does not find any force in such contention since the Appellate

Court has considered the factual and legal aspect and passed

reasoned findings to reverse judgment passed by the Sub

Divisional Officer. Further the Board of Revenue in exercise of its

appellate jurisdiction has affirmed the fidnings of the Revenue

Appellate Authority on merits.

The manner in which the Revenue Appellate Authority has

passed the judgment on merits recording its own findings to

reverse the judgment of SDO, it may not be held that judgment

does not meet with the mandatory requirement of Order 41 Rule

31 CPC. Mere non-mentioning of issues, may be a procedural flaw,

(Uploaded on 08/04/2026 at 03:58:13 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:15890] (7 of 8) [CW-18995/2025]

but not vitiate the judgment on merits. In that view, the judgment

passed by the Coodinate Bench dated 07.07.2025 in case of

Dheersingh (supra), does not render any support to the

petitioner to quash the impugned judgments.

10. It is settled proposition of law that interference in the fact

findings by the writ Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under

Article 227 is extremely narrow and limited. In that respect, the

off-quoted judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case

of Estralla Rubber Vs. Dass Estate (P) Ltd. [(2001) 8 SCC

97], may be referred, wherein explaining the scope of jurisdiction

under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court observed asunder:-

"The scope and ambit of exercise of power and jurisdiction by a High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is examined and explained in number of decisions of this Court. The exercise of power under this Article involves a duty on the High Court to keep inferior courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and to see that they do duty expected or required of them in a legal manner. The High Court is not vested with any unlimited prerogative to correct all kinds of hardship or wrong decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of the courts subordinate or tribunals. Exercise of this power and interfering with the orders of the courts or tribunal is restricted to cases of serious dereliction of duty and flagrant violation of fundamental principles of law or justice, where if High Court does not interfere, a grave injustice remains uncorrected. It is also well settled that the High Court while acting under this Article cannot exercise its power as anappellate court or substitute its own judgment in place of that of the subordinate court to correct an error, which is not apparent on the face of the record. The High Court can set aside or ignore the findings of facts of inferior court or tribunal, if there is no evidence at all to justify or the finding is so perverse, that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion, which the court or Tribunal has come to."

(emphasis supplied)

(Uploaded on 08/04/2026 at 03:58:13 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:15890] (8 of 8) [CW-18995/2025]

11. As a result, impugned judgment dated 12.09.2025 does not

warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of its powers

under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

12. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are hereby dismissed.

13. Stay applications and other pending application(s), if any,

stand disposed of.

(SUDESH BANSAL),J NITIN/21-22

(Uploaded on 08/04/2026 at 03:58:13 PM)