Back
2013 Supreme(Raj) 125
(Rajasthan High Court)
Mangu & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (Roy, CJ.)
HON'BLE AMITAVA ROY, CJ.
HON'BLE V.K. MATHUR, J.
Mangu & Ors.
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Ors.
D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.313 of 2005, decided on 19.03.2013
Usman Ghani, for Appellants
Headnote:Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, Sec. 42-B — Claiming the land to be purchased and possession be taken over — Transaction registered on 27.7.1967 on payment of due stamp duty — Transaction registered subsequent to the incorporation of Sec. 42-B which prohibiting the same and adjudged to be invalid — Held — Writ petition rightly rejected. (Para )
Appeal dismissed.
jktLFkku dk'rdkjh vf/kfu;e] 1955] /kkjk 42-[k & Hkwfe Ø; dh gqbZ gksuk vkSj dCts esa gksuk dk nkok djuk & cdk;k eqnzkad 'kqYd dk Hkqxrku djus ij 27-7-1967 dks lO;ogkj iaftd`r fd;k & /kkjk 42-[k ds lfEefyr djus ds i'pkrorhZ laO;ogkj iaftd`r fd;k tks mls fuf"k) djrh gS vr% vfof/kekU; gksuk U;k;fuf.kZr fd;k & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & ;kfpdk fujLr djuk lgh FkkA
vihy [kkfjt dhA ¼in la-½
2. The facts, in brief, necessary for the disposal of the instant appeal are that according to the appellants, their predecessor-in-interest had purchased the land involved in the proceedings from those of the private respondents prior to Samvat 2011 and possession thereof was handed over to the purchasers in Samvat 2008. This transaction was admittedly registered on 27.7.1967 on payment of due stamp duty. As the heirs and legal representatives of the seller did thereafter try to dispossess the appellants from the land involved, a suit was filed for permanent injunction and declaration of tenancy rights and also for grant of mutation in their names. This suit and thereafter, the appeals filed by the appellants before the First Appellate Forum and eventually, before the Board of Revenue failed. The sale having been registered on 27.7.1967 being subsequent to the incorporation of Section 42B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 prohibiting the same, it was adjudged to be invalid. The learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment and order while affirming this concurrent finding, has also negated the plea of adverse possession taken by the appellants on the basis of such sale.
3. The learned counsel for the appellants has argued that even assuming that the sale was effected by an unregistered document and the deed was registered only in the year 1967, the transaction could very well be used for co-lateral purposes such as possession of the appellants over the land involved and thus, the learned Single Judge ought not to have dismissed the writ petition as done. On being queried by us, the learned counsel for the appellants however has fairly submitted that he does not pursue the plea of adverse possession in the facts and circumstances of the case.
4. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a consideration of the pleaded facts and the documents on record, we are of the view that no interference with the impugned judgment and order is called for. The appeal, therefore, stands dismissed.
