Back
2001 Supreme(Raj) 1304
High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : BHAGAWATI PRASAD BANERJEE
PRAKASH MAL - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN - Respondent
Civil Writ Petition 2130 Of 1997
Decided On : 12/13/2001
DINESH MAHESHVARI, M.R.SINGHVI, R.K.SINGHAL, Rajesh Joshi
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the unregistered allotment letter did not confer an absolute right, and the conversion and patta issuance were in the capacity of a member of the Society. The court emphasized the importance of extinguishing the Society's khatedari rights before converting the land.
Headnote:
KHATEDARI RIGHTS - LAND ALLOTMENT - Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment, Conversion and Regularisation of Agriculture land for residential and commercial purposes in Urban Areas) Rules, 1981 - The court discussed the validity of the land allotment, conversion, and patta issuance in the context of khatedari rights and the Society's authority to make changes in the land plan and reduce plot area. The court concluded that the unregistered allotment letter in favor of Khushal Singh did not confer an absolute right, and the conversion and patta issuance were in the capacity of a member of the Society. The court held that the land belonged to the Society and the State had no right to convert it without extinguishing the Society's khatedari rights. The court dismissed the writ petition.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner claimed to have acquired absolute rights over a plot of land through a registered sale deed from Khushal Singh, who had received the land through an unregistered allotment letter from the Society and subsequent conversion and patta issuance by the State. The petitioner challenged the Society and Urban Improvement Trust's (UIT) actions regarding the land.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the unregistered allotment letter did not confer an absolute right, and the conversion and patta issuance were in the capacity of a member of the Society. The court held that the land belonged to the Society and the State had no right to convert it without extinguishing the Society's khatedari rights. The court dismissed the writ petition.
Issues: The issues involved the validity of land allotment, conversion, and patta issuance in the context of khatedari rights, the Society's authority to make changes in the land plan and reduce plot area, and the petitioner's claim to absolute rights over the land.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the unregistered allotment letter did not confer an absolute right, and the conversion and patta issuance were in the capacity of a member of the Society. The court concluded that the land belonged to the Society and the State had no right to convert it without extinguishing the Society's khatedari rights.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that no relief could be granted to the petitioner as the plot had lost its existence and the petitioner's recognition of UIT's right to develop the land indicated his acknowledgment of the UIT's authority. The court found that the issues involved complicated questions and civil rights that could not be decided on affidavits.
BHAGAWATI PRASAD BANERJEE, J.
( 1 ) THE present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner in the background that there was an agriculture holding owned by one Jethu Singh s/o Tej Singh in Khasara No. 759 measuring 12, 14 bighas situated at Kheme Ka Kuan. Jethu Singh was holder of Khatedari rights of this land. The said Khatedar sold his rights in favour of respondent No. 3 by a registered sale deed. After sale, the aforesaid land came to be vested in respondent-Samiti. A mutation was entered in the name of Society through Mutation No. 554. In the revenue record, in place of Jethu Singh, respondent No. 3 Samiti was entered as Khatedar. Respondent No. 3 was constituted as Housing Cooperative Society having its Registered No. 1186/q.
( 2 ) THE respondent No. 3 Society made available plot No. 11 measuring 600 sq. yards (60 fts. x 90 fts) to one Khushal Singh, a Member of the Society vide Annexure 1. The land was not converted and was allotted as agricultural land only. According to the petititioner, it was mentioned in the allotment letter that conversion and development charges are to be borne by the Member itself. The said Khushal Singh made an application for conversion of plot No. 11 measuring 600 sq. yards. The application presented by Khushal Singh was processed in accordance with law. The respondent Trust has given its no objection for its conversion and the Prescribed Authority after fulfilment of all the requirements converted agricultural and into urban land by the order dated 30-4-1988 in case No. 606/88. Patta dated 2/05/1988 in favour of said Khushal Singh and the pre-requisite amount was deposited by Khushal Singh and the alleged lease came to be granted in favour of Khushal Singh for a period of 99 years and in the letter issued to said Khushal Singh, plot area was mentioned as 600 sq. yards and plot number was 11. A copy of the patta has been produced on record as Annex. 3. The respondent Society had deposited the amount for sub-division of the land and for that, a receipt was issued by the respondent, marked as Annex. 4.
( 3 ) IT is claimed in the writ petition that by issuance of the patta in favour of Khushal Singh, Khushal Singh became the absolute owner of plot No. 11 measuring 600 sq. yards. After having acquired absolute rights, Khushal Singh along with Leela Devi transferred the said plot in favour of the petitioner in lieu of Rs. 1 lac. The transfer was made in favour of the petitioner through a registered sale deed dated 12-7-1991 registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Jodhpur. A copy of the registered sale deed has been produced on record as Annexure 5. It is claimed by the petitioner that after allotment of land in favour of Khushal Singh, he applied for conversion. The conversion having been ordered and patta having been issued in the name of Khushal Singh, the society had lost control over the plot. The Society had lost its right, title and interest over the land. Any act, omission or commission done by the respondent Society cannot affect the right, title and interest of Khushal Singh. After grant of patta in his favour, Khushal Singh transferred the land in favour of the petitioner along with Smt. Leela Devi, the petitioner became absolute owner of the land and had acquired absolute rights. The patta was issued in the name of His Excellency the Governor of Rajasthan.
( 4 ) THE Society while allotting the land to Khushal Singh had prepared a map and in that map, various plots were marked and allotted to various persons. The other persons also purchased the lands. After purchase, the petitioner applied to the respondent Trust for permission to raise construction. The respondent Trust has not granted permission as provided in law to the petitioner. On enquiries being made, the petitioner came to know that such applications have been made by other persons also but the respondent Trust is sitting tight over the matter and is not processing the permission applications. The respondent T
