Back
2012 Supreme(Raj) 92
[Citation : RLW 2012(1) RJ 490]
(Board of Revenue for Rajasthan)
State of Rajasthan Vs. Navi Khan & Ors. (Mathur, M.)
PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR, MEMBER
State of Rajasthan
Versus
Navi Khan & Ors.
Reference/LR/1918/2003/Bharatpur, decided on 19.01.2012
Vijendra Choudhary, Dy. Govt. Advocate, for State;
Dhanesh Dutt Sharma, for Respondents No.1 & 2;
None present on behalf of Respondents No.3 & 4
Headnote:Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, Secs. 45, 232 — Conferment of khatedari rights on the basis of continuous possession since Smvt. 2016 — Held — As per provisions of Sec. 45 of the Act, land cannot be given for cultivation in perpetuity — Only on the basis of consented written statement, mandatory provisions of the Act cannot be overlooked and khatedari rights ignoring the provisions of the Act could not be granted and transfer of khatedari rights through such collusive litigation, also causing revenue loss, cannot be maintained — Produced no documentary evidence — Suit was decreed only on the basis of oral evidence that too does not reveal their possession — Impugned judgment and decree quashed. (Paras 8 to 14)
Only on the basis of consented written statement, mandatory provisions of "the Act" cannot be overlooked and khatedari rights ignoring the provisions of "the Act" could not be granted and transfer of khatedari rights through such collusive litigation, also causing revenue loss cannot be maintained. (Para 11)
jktLFkku dk'rdkjh vf/kfu;e] 1955] /kkjk 45] 232 & laor~ 2016 ls fujUrj dCts ds vk/kkj ij [kkrsnkjh vf/kdkj iznku djuk & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 45 ds izko/kkuksa ds vuqlkj Hkwfe dks 'kk'or dky esa dk'r gsrq ugha nh tk ldrh & dsoy lger fyf[kr c;kuksa] ds vk/kkj ij vf/kfu;e ds vkKkid izko/kkuksa dh vuns[kh ugha dh tk ldrh rFkk vf/kfu;e ds izko/kkuksa dh mis{kk djds [kkrsnkjh vf/kdkj iznku ugha fd;s tk ldrs Fks ,oa ,slh nqLlaf/kiw.kZ eqdnesckth ds tfj;s [kkrsnkjh vf/kdkjksa dk vUrj.k ftlls jktLo dh gkfu Hkh gksrh gS mls la/kkfjr ugha fd;k tk ldrk & dksbZ nLrkosth lk{; is'k ugha fd;s & okn dsoy ekSf[kd lk{; ds vk/kkj ij fMØh gqvk rFkk mlls mudk dCtk Hkh izdV ugha gksrk & vk{ksfir fu.kZ; ,oa fMØh vfHk[kf.Mr fd;kA ¼in la[;k 8 ls 14½
jsQjsal Lohdkj fd;kA
2. Brief facts of the case are that non-petitioners No. 1 & 2 filed a suit in the court of Assistant Collector, Kama claiming that 1/4th portion of the disputed lands situated at Village Luhesar bearing khasra Nos. 129 min area 0.12 hectare, 130 min area 0.03 hectare, 131 min area 0.12 hectare, 132 min area 0.69 hectare, 135 min area 0.03 hectare, 136 min area 0.56 hectare was given to them for perpetual cultivation by the father of non-petitioners No. 3 & 4 in Samvat 2016 and since then the disputed land has continuously been cultivated by them, but is not so recorded in the revenue records. Hence, on the basis of long cultivatory possession, it may be declared that they are the khatedars of disputed land. Believing on the consented written statement filed by non-petitioners No. 3 & 4, the Assistant Collector, Kama decreed the suit on 15.3.1994 and ordered to record the above mentioned disputed lands in favour of non-petitioners No. 1 & 2 as khatedar tenant. On the basis of this judgment & decree, mutation No. 884 was made. Considering this judgment & decree in favour of non-petitioners as beyond jurisdiction, illegal and against record, Additional Collector, Deeg (Bharatpur) has made this reference to the Board of Revenue after affording an opportunity of hearing to the non-petitioners.
3. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
4. In support of reference, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate submitted that in support of their claims, non-petitioners have not submitted any documentary evidence of long cultivatory possession before trial court. Assistant Collector, Kama has passed the judgment & decree only on the basis of oral evidence ignoring the bar created under Section 45 of "the Act". Transfer of khatedari on given grounds also causes revenue loss to the State. The above said judgment & decree is absolutely against the record and in violation of the provisions of "the Act", hence deserves to be set aside. In view of above, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate requested that the reference be accepted.
5. Learned counsels for the non-petitioners have submitted that non-petitioners are continuously cultivating on the disputed land and are in cultivatory possession since long; hence they are the khatedars of the said land. On this basis, Assistant Collector, Kama has rightly passed the impugned judgment & decree on 15.3.1994 and hence mutation No. 884 has been made which does not cause any revenue loss to the government. Therefore, the present reference deserves to be rejected.
6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions and scanned the matter carefully.
7. From perusal of available record, it appears that the non-petitioners No. 1 & 2 had filed a revenue suit on the basis of fact that disputed land was given for cultivation by further of non-petitioners No. 3 & 4 in Samvat 2016 and since. Samvat 2016 they are in continuous possession of the land. So on the basis of continuous possession since Samvat 2016, they may be declared as khatedars.
8. "The Act" provides the conferment of khatedari right only on the basis of khudkasht, khatedar tenant or sub tenant at the commencement of this Act i.e. 1955 or Samvat 2012 and after the enactment of this Act as per section 45 of "the Act", the holder of khudkasht shall not let and khatedar tenant shall not sub let whole or any part of his holding for a term exceeding five years at any one time. It simple connotes that land cannot be given for cultivation in perpetuity.
9. Here also before the trial court non-petitioners No. 1 & 2 have pleaded that the disputed land was given for perpetual cultivation in Samvat 2016 i.e. after enactment of "the Act". But the bar created by Section 45 of "the Act" does not support the pleadings submitted by the
