2014 Supreme(Raj) 2023
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
Ajay Rastogi, Veerendr Singh Siradhana, JJ.
U.I.T. Alwar - Appellant
Versus
Board of Revenue and others - Respondent
D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 19-20 of 2012.
Decided On : 1-12-2014
Advocates:
For the Appellants:R.K. Mathur, Sr. Advocate with Aditya Mathur, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R.K. Agarwal, Sr. Advocate with Bhanu Pareek, Advocate.
A suit for mere declaration without claiming relief of possession is not maintainable under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, where the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit property and the defendant is in possession.
Headnote:
SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963 - SECTION 34 - RAJASTHAN ZAMINDARI & BISWEDARI ABOLITION ACT, 1959 - SECTIONS 6 & 7 - SUIT FOR MERE DECLARATION - MAINTAINABILITY - POSSESSION OF SUIT LAND - TRANSFER OF SUIT LAND TO URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST (UIT) - IMPLEADING UIT AS PARTY - NECESSITY - STATE GOVERNMENT'S FAILURE TO DISCLOSE FACT OF TRANSFER TO UIT - EFFECT.
Fact of the Case:
The State of Rajasthan filed a suit against Ram Narayan, claiming correction of entries in revenue records as a consequence of settlement operation. Ram Narayan defended the suit, claiming that the suit land was not covered under the Rajasthan Zamindari & Biswedari Abolition Act, 1959 (Act, 1959), and that he was in possession of the land. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the suit was not maintainable as the State had not sought consequential relief for possession of the land. The Revenue Appellate Authority set aside the trial court's order and directed that the suit land be recorded as Siwaichak. The Board of Revenue allowed Ram Narayan's appeal and dismissed the State's suit, holding that the suit land was not covered under the Act, 1959, and that the State was not entitled to a mere declaratory decree for correction of entries. The Urban Improvement Trust (UIT), to whom the State had transferred the suit land, filed a writ petition challenging the Board of Revenue's order.
Finding of the Court:
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed the UIT's writ petition, holding that the State Government's failure to implead the UIT as a party to the appeal before the Board of Revenue did not render the order passed by the Board of Revenue void. The Court held that the State Government was under an obligation to disclose the fact of the transfer of the suit land to the UIT to the Board of Revenue, but that the UIT could not claim any better title or right in the suit land than the State Government had.
Issues: 1. Whether a suit for mere declaration without claiming relief of possession is maintainable under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963? 2. Whether the State Government's failure to implead the UIT as a party to the appeal before the Board of Revenue rendered the order passed by the Board of Revenue void?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A suit for mere declaration without claiming relief of possession is not maintainable under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, where the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit property and the defendant is in possession. 2. The State Government's failure to implead the UIT as a party to the appeal before the Board of Revenue did not render the order passed by the Board of Revenue void, as the State Government was under an obligation to disclose the fact of the transfer of the suit land to the UIT to the Board of Revenue, and the UIT could not claim any better title or right in the suit land than the State Government had.
Final Decision: The Rajasthan High Court dismissed the UIT's writ petition, holding that the State Government's failure to implead the UIT as a party to the appeal before the Board of Revenue did not render the order passed by the Board of Revenue void.
JUDGMENT
1. Since both the instant intra-court appeals have been preferred against the self same judgment of the learned Single Judge impugned herein dated 30.08.2011, hence heard together & being disposed of by the present common order.
2. The brief facts are that a suit came to be filed by Tahsildar on behalf of State of Rajasthan in respect of suit land in the court of Sub-Divisional Officer, Alwar on 30.11.1968. It reveals from the material on record that the suit land was purchased by one Banarsi Das on 06.01.1949 from the erstwhile Biswedar and the predecessor-in-title of respondent Ram Narayan purchased the suit land by registered sale deed on 19.02.1955 from Banarsidas and thereafter mutations no.125 & 195 were opened in favour of the predecessor-in-title of the respondent Ram Narayan on 05.09.1956.
3. However, the State Government was of the view that as a result of coming into force of the Rajasthan Zamindari & Biswedari Abolition Act,1959 (Act,1959), the suit land in question being Banjar & having vested with the State, the State Government became owner of the suit land and Ram Narayan was a trespasser and accordingly proceedings were initiated u/S 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act,1956 against Ram Narayan in respect of suit land in question but those proceedings were dropped by the Tahsildar vide order dated 28.12.1965, at the same time application was submitted by the deceased Ram Narayan, the predecessor-in-title for recording of their names in the settlement operation and that came to be allowed under the order of Settlement Officer dated 15.01.1965 and the name of Ram Narayan was entered in the revenue records and that appears to be a reason for which the Tahsildar dropped the proceedings initiated u/S 91 of the Land Revenue Act,1956 for eviction of the trespasser vide order dated 28.12.1965. However, the State Government decided to file a suit against the predecessor-in-title of the respondent Ram Narayan and the suit was filed by the State for correction of entries in the revenue records as a consequence of settlement operation. The defendant Ram Narayan filed written statement giving complete details of the subject land & controverting the averments made in the plaint & raising further objections that it was not open for the State to file a suit seeking correction of entries & apart from other objections it was stated in the additional pleas that the suit is not maintainable as the suit land is in possession of the defendants on which constructions have been raised and without making prayer for returning of the possession the suit is not maintainable.
4. The learned first original revenue court after taking into consideration the material on record & the evidence recorded dismissed the suit vide its judgment dated 28.03.1972 and recorded a finding that at the time when Ram Narayan purchased the suit property from Banarsi Das in the year 1955, there was existence of Kachcha house & compound wall surrounding the suit land in dispute in which the labourers were residing having constructed Kachcha huts and further arrived to the conclusion that the land was not covered under the provisions of the Act,1959 and was within the scope of private properties as envisaged under the Act and also recorded that in case the plaintiff felt that the land continued to vest with the State as a consequence of applicability of the Act, the course open for the plaintiff was to proceed in terms of Section 9 of the Act,1959 and the State Government failed to question the decision of the settlement officer dated 15.01.1965, as a consequence thereof it had been directed that the land should be recorded in the name of defendant respondent Ram Narayan and since no appeal was filed against the aforesaid decision of the Settlement Officer dated 15.01.1965, arrived to the conclusion that the settlement had not vested with the State and held that the suit in the present form filed at the instance of the State Government is not maintainable
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
