Back
High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : G.M.Lodha
PRAHLAD - Appellant
Versus
BOARD OF REVENUE, RAJASTHAN, AJMER AND ORS. - Respondent
Civil Misc. Writ Petn. 628 Of 1973
Decided On : 04/12/1983
RAJASTHAN TENANCY ACT, 1955 - SECTION 19 - REVENUE RECORD OF RIGHTS - GIRDAWARI - STATUS OF KHATEDAR - TRESPASSER - MAFIDAR - RESUMPTION OF MAFI - TRANSFER OF LAND TO MUNICIPAL BOARD - JURISDICTION OF TRIAL COURT TO DECLARE KHATEDARI RIGHTS - LIMITATION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, claiming to be sub-tenants of a Mafidar, challenged the Municipal Board's suit for ejectment from the disputed land, asserting their status as Khatedars under Section 19 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. The Revenue Appellate Authority and the Board of Revenue upheld the trial court's dismissal of the suits, finding the petitioners to be trespassers and not Khatedars. The petitioners filed writ petitions challenging these decisions.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the petitioners failed to establish their Khatedari rights through revenue records or Girdawari entries, which are not considered record of rights under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. The Court emphasized the importance of record of rights, such as Jamabandi (Khewat Khatauni), in determining Khatedari status. The Court also found that the Municipal Board had been recognized as the Khatedar in the revenue records since Samvat year 2012, following the resumption of Mafidari rights under the Rajasthan Zamindari and Bisvedari Abolition Act, 1959. The Court further held that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to declare the petitioners as Khatedars under Section 19 of the Act, as they had not taken any legal action to challenge the entries in the revenue records in favor of the Municipal Board.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioners, claiming to be sub-tenants of a Mafidar, could establish their Khatedari rights under Section 19 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, based on Girdawari entries and possession of the disputed land. 2. Whether the Municipal Board, as the recorded Khatedar in the revenue records, had a valid claim to the disputed land. 3. Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to declare the petitioners as Khatedars under Section 19 of the Act, despite the absence of any legal challenge to the revenue records.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Girdawari entries, being administrative records, do not constitute record of rights under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. 2. Record of rights, such as Jamabandi (Khewat Khatauni), are crucial in determining Khatedari status. 3. The petitioners' failure to challenge the revenue records showing the Municipal Board as the Khatedar, despite the resumption of Mafidari rights, resulted in the Municipal Board's valid claim to the disputed land. 4. The trial court lacked jurisdiction to declare the petitioners as Khatedars under Section 19 of the Act, as they had not taken any legal action to challenge the revenue records.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the writ petitions, upholding the concurrent findings of the Revenue Appellate Authority and the Board of Revenue that the petitioners were trespassers and not Khatedars. The Court also clarified that the trial court's declaration of the petitioners as Khatedars was not justified, as they had not taken any legal action to challenge the revenue records.
G. M. LODHA, J.
( 1 ) THESE three writ petitions are directed against the common judgment of the Board if Revenue, Rajasthan, Aimer dated the 22nd January 1973 by which three second appeals against the Municipal Board Bhawani Mandi were disposed of.
( 2 ) THESE three second appeals were filed in three suite namely, No. 265/1960, 266/1960, 264/1960 which were decided by the Assistant Collector, Jhalawar, under Section 183 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act) vide a common order of 14th Oct 1968 (Annexure 8 ).
( 3 ) THE petitioners denied the allegations made by the Municipal Board in the suits and contended that the suit land was a Mafi Jagir and under the Mafi of one Pawangir. From the time of Pawangir, the petitioner--Prahlads father--Manga was in possession as a sub-tenant of the Mafidar for the last 35 years and as at the time of resumption of Mafi he was a sub-tenant, he became the Recorded Tenant and by virtue of law he became the statutory Khatedar tenant of the land in question and as such the Municipal Board is not entitled to eject the petitioner from the land in question. It was further contended by the petitioners that the Municipal Board had filed a suit against the petitioners father in respect of the same land and for the same cause of action in the court of Assistant Collector, being suit Nos. 265, 266, and 264 of 1360 and that suits having been dismissed the Municipal Board was not entitled to bring the present suit in respect of the same land for same cause of action as the same was barred under the law. It was contended that the Municipal Board never came to be in possession of the land in question nor it came to its Khata. The entries which came to be made later on in the revenue records were got entered in collusion with Patwari behind the back of the petitioner. Various other pleas about the maintainability of the suits were also taken in the written statement dated the 26th June, 1963 (Annex-ure 2 ).
( 4 ) THE petitioners submitted Khasra Girdawari for the Samvat year 2005 to 2008, 2010 to 2013, 2013 to 2016, 2017 to 2020 and 2021 to 2024 (Annexures 3 to 7 ). The Municipal Board filed the Jamabandi for the Samwat Years 2016 to 2019 and also Khasra Girdawari for the Samwat Years 2017 to 2020, in support of their rival contentions.
( 5 ) IN all these suits the respondents-plaintiff contended that the land in question was in the Khatedari of the plaintiff-Municipal Board and the defendants were trespassers, over this land in dispute. The defendants petitioners contested the suits and submitted that they were Khatedars as they were cultivating the land in dispute for the last 35 years.
( 6 ) AFTER the issues were framed and the evidence was recorded, the suits (supra) were dismissed by the trial Court. However, the first appellate Court decreed the suit and reversed the order of the trial Court. The Board of Revenue confirmed the judgment of the first appellate Court in all three cases.
( 7 ) IN the present two writ petitions, while the arguments were being heard, the learned counsel for the parties submitted that the third writ petition which is pending on account of the application for bringing legal representatives on record because of death of Mathuralal S/o Narain Kalal, should also be taken up and be decided together. The joint request of the learned counsel for the parties was accepted and the third writ petition of Mathuralal is also being decided by this consolidated order, as prayed.
( 8 ) BEFORE I deal with the merits of the writ petitions. I must mention that, Mathuralal expired on 1st January, 1978 and since no steps were taken for bringing the legal representatives on record and the application was moved by Shri Dalip Singh, the learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of the Municipal Board, Bhawani Mandi on 25th March, 1983 that the writ petition has abated and the same should be dismissed, as legal representatives of the petitioner, Mathuralal,
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
