2014 Supreme(Raj) 953
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Amitava Roy, Vijay Bishnoi, JJ.
LR’s Teja Ram - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Ors. - Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 259 of 2006.
Decided On : 10-02-2014
Advocates:
For the Appellant:L.R. Mehta, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Sunil Joshi on behalf of Rajesh Panwar, AAG.
Headnote:A. Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, Section 88 and 188 – Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, Section 91 – Khatedari Rights – Petitioner field suit for declaration claiming Khatedari rights in respect of 54 Bigha of Agricultural Land – Land recorded as Bila Kabja Sarkari Padat in revenue records – Plaintiff relied on Patta granted by former Jagirdar of Barmer – Genuineness of patta produced by petitioner doubtful – Plea that maintenance of Patta Record in jagir of Barmer Pargana Malani was most haphazard – The measurements of the land given in patta did not meet the requirements when land in question was recorded as Government Land – Held, the plaintiff was not entitled to Decree of Khatedari rights. The findings of the lower court and the single judge has been upheld – The petitioner has not been able to prove his valid claim in the land in question – Petitioner claimed his right on the grounds that the pasta was given to him by the former jagirdar of Barmer and also raised the plea that he has been maintaining the said Patta – the plea not reliable – The records and the evidence show that the measurement of the land also did not match the govt records – decree was not given to the petitioner for the rights in khatedari – Appeal is not permitted.
B. Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, Sections 221 and 223 – Where a question about the jurisdiction of the Revenue Appellate authority is asked it has been held that the authority was wrong in decreeing the suit without sufficient evidence on record and thus the Revenue board correctly intervened with the order of the authority – Revenue Board has the superintendence over all revenue courts.
Judgement Key Points
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized:
-
The case involves a land dispute where the petitioner, Late Teja Ram, claimed Khatedari rights over 54 Bighas of agricultural land recorded as 'Bila Kabja Sarkari Padat' in revenue records (!) .
-
The petitioner relied on a Patta allegedly granted by a former Jagirdar of Barmer, but the genuineness of this Patta was doubted due to the haphazard maintenance of records and discrepancies in land measurements (!) .
-
The Assistant Collector initially dismissed the revenue suit, citing lack of proof of continuous possession and doubts about the authenticity of the Patta, especially since the land was recorded as government land (!) .
-
The Revenue Appellate Authority reversed this decision and decreed the suit in favor of Late Teja Ram, accepting his evidence and the Patta's validity (!) .
-
The State government did not appeal or seek revision but referred the matter to the Board of Revenue under a specific section, which questioned the validity of the Revenue Appellate Authority's order and accepted the reference (!) .
-
The Board of Revenue, exercising its supervisory powers, reviewed the case and found that the Revenue Appellate Authority had exceeded its jurisdiction by accepting insufficient evidence regarding possession and the authenticity of the Patta (!) .
-
The review concluded that there was no reliable evidence to establish Late Teja Ram’s possession over the land, and the Patta's measurements did not meet the standards for agricultural land, thereby invalidating his claim (!) .
-
The courts, including the learned Single Judge, upheld the findings that the Revenue Appellate Authority's decision was beyond its jurisdiction and was not supported by adequate evidence (!) .
-
The courts emphasized that the Revenue Board has broad supervisory powers over subordinate revenue courts, including the authority to interfere when illegalities are identified (!) (!) .
-
Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed, affirming that the original decision to deny Khatedari rights was correct based on the evidence and legal principles involved (!) (!) .
Would you like a more detailed analysis or assistance with a specific aspect of this case?
JUDGMENT
1. - This appeal is directed against the order dated 24.04.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge in SBCWP No. 1364/1993, whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition. Brief facts of the case are that Tehsildar, Barmer, while exercising powers under Section 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act of 1956' hereinafter) issued a notice to Late Teja Ram to show cause as to why he may not be dispossessed from the illegal occupation from the Government land situated in Khasra No. 1468 of Barmer. Late Teja Ram submitted his reply to the said notice, and simultaneously filed a suit in the Court of Assistant Collector, Barmer under Section 88 and 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act of 1955' hereinafter) seeking declaration of Khatedari Rights in respect of 54 Bighas of land in Khasra No. 1468 of Barmer. The Assistant Collector, Barmer vide judgment dated 25.03.1983, had dismissed the revenue suit preferred by Late Teja Ram and held that he was having possession over some part of the land in dispute during the period commencing from Samvat Year 2021 to 2026 and thereafter for some period from Samvat Year 2036 to 2039 only. The Assistant Collector, Barmer had further observed that the land, over which Late Teja Ram was having possession, is recorded as 'Bila Kabja Sarkari Padat' in the revenue records and he failed to prove his continuous possession over the said land. The Assistant Collector, Barmer has also doubted the genuineness of the patta produced by Late Teja Ram in support of his claim that the said patta was granted to him by former Jagirdars of Barmer. The Assistant Collector, Barmer also observed that looking to the measurement of the land given in the patta, it cannot be concluded that the same is pertaining to an agricultural land.
2. Being aggrieved with the judgment passed by the Assistant Collector, Barmer on 25.03.1983, Late Teja Ram preferred an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jodhpur under Section 223 of the Act of 1955. The said appeal came to be allowed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jodhpur on 15.05.1984 and revenue suit preferred by the Late Teja Ram was decreed in his favour.
3. Admittedly no appeal or revision was preferred on behalf of the Sate Government under the provisions of the Act of 1955. However, a reference was made by the District Collector, Barmer to the Board of Revenue under Section 221 of the Act of 1955 questioning the validity of the order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jodhpur on 15.05.1984. The Board of Revenue, vide judgment dated 27.05.1992, has accepted the said reference and a review application preferred by Late Teja Ram was also rejected by the Board of Revenue vide order dated 15.02.1993.
4. Being aggrieved with the orders passed passed by the Board of Revenue dated 27.05.1992 and 15.02.1993, Late Teja Ram preferred the above mentioned writ petition, which came to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge by the impugned order.
5. Assailing the validity of the impugned order dated 24.04.2006, the learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the learned Single Judge has erred in not appreciating that the Board of Revenue had exercised its jurisdiction under Section 221 of the Act of 1955 on a totally non-existence ground. It is also contended that though the learned Single Judge has clearly accepted the position that in Jagir of Barmer Pargana Malani, the maintenance of revenue record was in most haphazard manner and no record regarding the grant of patta was maintained and but illegally held that the patta issued in favour of petitioner does not inspire confidence. The learned counsel for the appellant has further argued that there was ample evidence available on record to the effect that patta in favour of Late Teja Ram for the land in question was granted by the then Jagirdar and Jaridar himself deposed before the Assistant Collector, Barmer to substantiate the fact that pa
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
