Back
2005 Supreme(Raj) 2560
High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : Govind Mathur
Sawaran Jeet Singh - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2807 of 1993
Decided On : 11/11/2005
Mr. S.L. Jain, for the Petitioner. Mr. B.L. Tiwari, Deputy Government Advocate. Mr. C.L. Jain, for the Respondents.
Once khatedari rights have arisen in favor of a village servant, they are entitled to transfer the land without paying any additional amount to the State Government.
Headnote:
Khatedari Rights - Village Servants - Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, Section 193 - The court discussed the abolition of the system of village servants and the grant of khatedari rights in lieu of village services under the Act of 1955. It highlighted the provisions of Section 193, which confers the right on a village servant to hold the land granted to them as a khatedar tenant if their services are terminated by the Collector. The court emphasized that once khatedari rights have arisen, the village servant is competent to transfer the land without paying any additional amount to the State Government.
Fact of the Case:
The Government of Rajasthan decided to abolish the system of village servants and grant khatedari rights in lieu of village services. The petitioner, as a legal heir of a village servant, challenged the transfer of mutation in favor of Gurudwara Chak Deh.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was entitled to khatedari rights under Section 193 of the Act of 1955 and that the transfer made in favor of the petitioner was just. The court concluded that the mutation made in favor of Gurudwara Chak Deh was erroneous and quashed it.
Issues: The issues revolved around the grant of khatedari rights to village servants, the authority to transfer the land, and the validity of the mutation in favor of Gurudwara Chak Deh.
Ratio Decidendi: The key legal principle established was that once khatedari rights have arisen in favor of a village servant, they are entitled to transfer the land without paying any additional amount to the State Government.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the mutation made in favor of Gurudwara Chak Deh was quashed and set aside.
Govind Mathur, J.-The instant petition for writ is preferred by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution arising out of following circumstances:
2. The Government of Rajasthan in the year 1965 decided to abolish the system of keeping the village servants such as Kotwals, Tarkhans, Nais, Pujaris, Granthis and Molvies etc. For the purpose letter No. F. 2 (682)Rev/B62 dated 05.06.1965 was addressed by Secretary to Government of Rajasthan to all the Collectors. The Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan in the letter dated 05.06.1965 stated that the system of present Kotwals, Tarkhans, Nais, Pujaris, Granthis and Molvies etc. who held village servant grants or mafi lands may now be notified that their services are no longer required and if they wish to secure khatedari rights in respect of lands held by them in lieu of village service they will have to pay the Government the reserve price of the land.
3. The Collector, Ganganagar in pursuant to the letter dated 05.06.1965 issued a notification on
30.04.1966 which reads as under: -“In pursuance of Section 193 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, I, T.V. Ramanan Collector, Sriganganagar hereby declare that the services of village servants i.e., Kotwals, Tarkhans, Nais, Pujaris, Granthis and Molvies of Gang Canal area and Bhakra Project are no more required, as desired by the Government of Rajasthan vide Secretary, Revenue (B) Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur letter No. F.2 (682) Rev/B/62 dated 05.06.1965 and dated 11.03.1966. These village servants are directed to apply to their concerning Sub-Divisional Officers (Revenue) within thirty days from the issue of this Notification for obtaining Khatedari rights in accordance with the instructions of the Government contained in above referred communications.”
4. From reading of notification dated 30.04.1966 it is apparent that Collector, Sriganganagar while exercising powers under Section 193 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1955”) declared that services of village servants which includes the Granthis in Ganganagar District are no longer required and that village servants were directed to apply to their concerning Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) for obtaining khatedari rights in mafi lands held by them in accordance with the instructions of the Government.
5. One Shri Somprakash being Granthi was allotted four bighas and seven biswas land in murrabba No. 12, kila No. 21 to 25 in Chak 2 BBA as the grant. The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Srikaranpur by an order dated 30.03.1967 recognised khatedari rights of Shri Somprakash on the land referred above. Shri Somprakash deposited price of the land to the State Government. Shri Somprakash on 16.01.1970 executed a will in favour of the petitioner which is placed on record as Annexure 4. Shri Somprakash died somewhere in the year 1972-1973 and thereafter the petitioner was in cultivatory possession over the land in question. The Sub Divisional Officer, Srikaranpur sanctioned mutation of the land which was in khatedari of Late Shri Somprakash in favour of Gurudwara Chak Deh. The entry in the mutation as stated above was made on 26.05.1993. Being aggrieved by the same present writ petition is preferred by the petitioner.
6. It is contended by Counsel for the petitioner that by the force of Section 193 of the Act of 1955 Shri Somprakash became khatedar tenant and thereafter he was having all authority to transfer the land and as such the same was acquired by the petitioner being a legal heir of Shri Somprakash. It is contended by Counsel for the petitioner that there was no reason for transferring mutation in favour of Gurudwara by the respondent No. 2.
7. A reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of the respondent stating therein that the land was allotted to the Granthi due to services rendered by him with Gurudwara and as such Shri Somprakash was having no right to transfer such land to the petitioner. According to th
