SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2014 Supreme(Raj) 1313

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
Dinesh Maheshwari, J.
Sharvan - Appellant
Versus
Kajod and Anr. - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2184-2185 of 2014.
Decided On : 16-04-2014

Advocates:
For the Petitioner:Sunil Kumar Singodiya, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Rajesh Kapoor, Advocate.

The settlement authorities are not empowered to change any entry in previous settlement records unless the change is to be brought about as a result of an order of the competent authority or acquisition or transfer.

Headnote:

REVENUE - LAND DISPUTE - ALTERATION OF REVENUE RECORD - JURISDICTION OF SETTLEMENT AUTHORITIES - CONSENT OF PARTIES - LEGAL PRINCIPLES - REMAND TO TRIAL COURT FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION.

Fact of the Case:

The dispute pertains to agricultural land in Village Bhanderaj, Teshil Dausa, which was converted into new Khasra Nos. 2553 to 2368, 2472 to 2475, 2489 to 2491, 2526 to 2528, ad measuring 5.46 hectares. The land was recorded in the name of Nanga son of Shri Kalya, Punnya son of Shri Govinda. The Settlement Department had issued a Parishodhan Patra dated 13.01.1983 wherein, the land in dispute was entered in the names of Sukhdev, Heera sons of Nanga (1/2 share) and Punnya, Nahnu sons of Govinda (1/2 share). On 04.01.2008, the petitioner Sharvan son of Punnya filed a suit for declaration, partition and perpetual injunction with regard to land in question, being Revenue Suit No. 2/2008, while asserting that the name of his father's brother Nahnu came to be wrongly inserted in the revenue record by the settlement authorities and that ultimately, the defendants Nos. 1 and 2, sons of Nahnu, had agreed to get their names deleted from the record. The contesting defendants resisted the claim of the petitioner while asserting that alteration of the revenue record was carried out by the settlement authorities on the basis of mutual consent of the parties; and that the said Parishodhan Patra had never been challenged.

Finding of the Court:

The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court failed to deal with all the contentious issues adequately and appropriately, and rendered wholly cursory and assumptive decisions. The Board of Revenue ought to have remanded the matter to the Trial Court for decision afresh and in accordance with law, instead of deciding the issues involved in the suits as if the Original Court.

Issues: 1. Whether the settlement authorities had the jurisdiction to change the entry in the revenue record without an order of the competent authority or acquisition or transfer? 2. Whether the alleged consent of the petitioner's father, Punnya, could afford a basis for making changes in the record of rights by the settlement authorities? 3. Whether the petitioner was entitled to seek alteration of the revenue record and deletion of the names of respondents Nos.1 and 2, sons of Nahnu?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The settlement authorities are not empowered to change any entry in previous settlement records unless the change is to be brought about as a result of an order of the competent authority or acquisition or transfer. 2. The settlement authorities are bound to reflect the same position with regard to the records which existed at the material time; and they have no authority to change any entry. 3. Even the alleged consent of the petitioner's father, Punnya, could not afford any basis for making changes in the record of rights by the settlement authorities.

Final Decision: The impugned judgments and decrees as passed by the subordinate Revenue Courts/Authorities are set aside. Revenue Suit No.2/2008: Sharvan v. Kajod & Ors. as also Revenue Suit No.71/2010 (7/2012): Kajod & Anr. v. Sharvan shall stand restored for re-consideration by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sikrai.

JUDGMENT

1. - These two writ petitions, preferred against the common judgment and decree dated 10.02.2014 passed by the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer ('the Board'/'the Board of Revenue') in two appeals (Nos. TA/6776/2012/Dausa and TA/6777/2012/Dausa), essentially involving common questions between the same parties, have been considered together; and are taken up for disposal by this common order.

2. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material placed on record, this Court is of the view that while setting aside the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the subordinate Revenue Courts/Authorities, the two revenue suits leading to these petitions are required to be restored for re-consideration by the Trial Court i.e., the Court of Sub-Divisional Officer, Sikrai ('the SDO').

3. As the matters are proposed to be remanded to the Trial Court for re-consideration, dilatation on all the factual and legal aspects is not necessary; and only a brief reference to the background aspects and reasons for remand would suffice.

4. The dispute between the contesting parties, closely related to each other, pertains to the agricultural land comprised in old Khasra Nos. 669, 673 and 678, ad measuring 23 bighas 6 biswas at Village Bhanderaj, Teshil Dausa, which was converted into new Khasra Nos. 2553 to 2368, 2472 to 2475, 2489 to 2491, 2526 to 2528, ad measuring 5.46 hectares. As per Jamabandi of Samvat Years 2034 to 2037, the said land was recorded in the name of Nanga son of Shri Kalya, Punnya son of Shri Govinda. The Settlement Department had issued one Parishodhan Patra (with regard to partition) dated 13.01.1983 wherein, the land in dispute was entered in the names of Sukhdev, Heera sons of Nanga (1/2 share) and Punnya, Nahnu sons of Govinda (1/2 share).

5. On 04.01.2008, the petitioner Sharvan son of Punnya filed a suit for declaration, partition and perpetual injunction with regard to land in question, being Revenue Suit No. 2/2008, while asserting that the name of his father's brother Nahnu came to be wrongly inserted in the revenue record by the settlement authorities and that ultimately, the defendants Nos. 1 and 2, sons of Nahnu, had agreed to get their names deleted from the record. The petitioner also asserted his possession over the land in question while referring to various of his dealings. The petitioner alleged illegal interference by the respondents and sought declaration with other requisite reliefs.The contesting defendants resisted the claim of the petitioner while asserting that alteration of the revenue record was carried out by the settlement authorities on the basis of mutual consent of the parties; and that the said Parishodhan Patra had never been challenged. After taking the evidence on the issues framed, the learned SDO proceeded to dismiss the suit in the judgment and decree dated 25.04.2012 while determining the issues in the following manner:-

rudh okbZy foospu fuEukafdr izdkj ls gSA

1- rudh ua0 1 %& vk;k oknh [k0ua0 2053 rk- 2368] 2472] 2473] 2474] 2475] 2489] 2490] 2491] 2526] 2527] 2528 dqy fdrk 26 okds xzke Hkk.Mkjst izfroknh la0 1 o 2 dk uke [kkrsnkjh ls gVk;s tkus dk gd j[krs gSaA
------oknh

bl rudh dks fl) djus dk Hkkj oknh ij gSA i=koyh ij miyC/k nLrkost ls lkfcr gS fd mDr Hkwfe esa oknh o oknh ds firk iwU;k dh lgefr ls izfroknh ua0 1] 2 ds firk uguw o izfroknh ua0 1] 2 dk uke ls gqvk gS o foHkktu Hkh lgefr ls iwU;k dh gqvk gSA jftLVj~ c;ukek izfroknh 1] 2 dks gd feyk gSA izfroknh ua0 1] 2 dk uke gtQ djkus dk oknh dks dksbZ gd ugha gSA blfy, ;g rudh oknh ds f[kykQ o izfroknh ds i{k r; dh tkrh gSA

2- rudh ua0 2 & vk;k oknh mDr vkjkth esa ls rdkLek djkus o LFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk ikus dk gd j[krs gSaA
------oknh

bl rudh dks fl) djus dk Hkkj oknh ij gSA iwoZ esa rdkLek oknh ds firk iwU;k dh lgefr ls gqvk gSA blfy;s oknh vc rdkLek djkus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gSA dkuwuu fjdkMsZM [kkrsnkj dkfct dk'rdkj izfroknhx.k dks LfkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk ls ikcUn ugha fd;k tk ldrkA blfy, rudh oknh



























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top