Back
2015 Supreme(Raj) 374
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
Mohammad Rafiq, J.
Mor Mukat Singh and Others – Appellants
Vs.
Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer and Others – Respondents
Civil Writ Petition No.5708/1995
Decided On : 26.05.2015
Advocate Appeared:
Shri Sanjay Mehrishi with Shri Timan Singh, counsel for petitioners
Shri Pawan Pareek with Shri Bhanu Pareek and Shri Raghvendra Singh, counsel for respondents
A person who is not in actual cultivatory possession of land when it vests in the State under the Rajasthan Zamindari and Biswedari Abolition Act does not acquire any 'khatedari' rights, while a person who is in actual cultivatory possession on the relevant date acquires 'khatedari' rights under Section 15 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act.
Headnote:
LAND REFORMS - RAJASTHAN TENANCY ACT, 1955 - SECTION 15 - KHATEDARI RIGHTS - CULTIVATORY POSSESSION - VESTING OF LAND IN STATE - RIGHT TO POSSESSION - RAJASTHAN ZAMINDARI AND BISWEDARI ABOLITION ACT, 1959 - SECTION 4 - RAJASTHAN LAND REFORMS AND RESUMPTION OF JAGIRS ACT, 1952 - SECTION 10 - KHUDKAST LAND - TENANCY RIGHTS - RAJASTHAN STATE GRANTS LAND TENURES ACT, 1947 - SECTION 136 - SUIT FOR EJECTMENT - MAINTAINABILITY - INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs filed a suit for ejectment, recovery of possession, and compensation against defendants, claiming rights under the Jaipur State Land Grants Tenures Act and the Jaipur Tenancy Act. The suit was decreed by the trial court and affirmed in appeal. On second appeal, the Board of Revenue allowed the appeal and remanded the matter for a fresh decision on the issue of whether plaintiffs were entitled to file the suit. The Revenue Appellate Authority dismissed the suit, and the Board of Revenue upheld the dismissal. Plaintiffs filed a writ petition, which was initially dismissed but later allowed by the Supreme Court, remanding the matter for fresh disposal.
Finding of the Court:
The Revenue Appellate Authority and the Board of Revenue correctly held that the disputed land was the plaintiffs' 'khudkasht' land but erred in dismissing the suit for ejectment. The defendants were not 'pantidar' but actual tillers of the land and had been in possession since before the Rajasthan Tenancy Act came into force. Therefore, they acquired 'khatedari' rights under Section 15 of the Act. The plaintiffs were not in actual cultivatory possession when the land vested in the State under the Rajasthan Zamindari and Biswedari Abolition Act, so they did not acquire any 'khatedari' rights. The defendants, being in actual possession on the relevant date, acquired 'khatedari' rights. The plaintiffs, as 'chhut bhaias' (family of younger brother of Thikanedar), did not come under the definition of 'tenant' and were not entitled to protection under the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance.
Issues: 1. Whether the defendants were 'pantidar' or actual tillers of the land. 2. Whether the plaintiffs were in actual cultivatory possession when the land vested in the State. 3. Whether the defendants acquired 'khatedari' rights under Section 15 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. 4. Whether the plaintiffs, as 'chhut bhaias', were entitled to protection under the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The 'pantinama' (partnership deed) showed that the defendants were only 'pantidar' for a period of two years, after which their possession became unauthorized and they became trespassers. 2. The plaintiffs were not in actual cultivatory possession when the land vested in the State under the Rajasthan Zamindari and Biswedari Abolition Act, as evidenced by 'khasra girdawari' and 'jamabandi' records. 3. The defendants acquired 'khatedari' rights under Section 15 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, as they were in actual cultivatory possession on the relevant date. 4. The plaintiffs, as 'chhut bhaias', did not come under the definition of 'tenant' and were not entitled to protection under the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance, as held by the Board of Revenue in Ganesh Vs. Ishri Singh.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, upholding the orders of the Board of Revenue and the Revenue Appellate Authority.
1. This writ petition has been filed by three petitioners, namely, Mor Mukat Singh, Uday Bhan Singh and Vijay Singh, who are sons of Shri Soor Singh, challenging order dated 02.01.1987 (Annexure-10), orders dated 25.11.1980 (Annexure8), 04.05.1994 (Annexure-11) and 27.09.1994 (Annexure-12) of the Board of Revenue, with further prayer that the suit filed by them against defendant-respondents no.3 to 9, for ejectment, recovery of possession and compensation, be decreed.
2. Aforementioned suit for ejectment was filed by plaintiff-petitioners on 13.07.1953 by the petitioners and their mother Ratan Kanwar, on the basis of right claimed by them under Section 136 of the Jaipur State Land Grants Tenures Act and Section 93 of the Jaipur Tenancy Act. Section 93 of the Jaipur Tenancy Act enabled a tenant ejected or prevented from obtaining possession of his holding or any part thereof, otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the law for the time being in force, to sue the person so ejecting him or keeping him out of possession. Reliance was placed on Section 136 of the Jaipur State Grants Land Tenures Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Act of 1947'), which provided that in a suit for possession brought by a tenant in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 93 of the Jaipur Tenancy Act, the landholder and every other person, who had wrongfully ejected him or had taken over possession after such ejectment, must be joined as defendants in the suit.
3. The case set up by the plaintiffs in the plaint was that they were “Chhut Bhaias”, (family of younger brother (and his descendants) of Thikanedar) of Thikana Gotor. Their father had died in the year 1949 when they were still minor. Their mother had taken defendant no.1 Ram Sukha, as 'sajhi in kasht' for Samvat 2007, according to which permission of cultivation was given to defendant no.1 Ram Sukha on understanding of sharing the crop between the petitioners and him. In doing so, their mother supplied him bullocks and implements for the purpose of cultivation. Defendant no.1 Ram Sukha later tried to take undue advantage of minority of the plaintiffs and used the land for himself and also included defendants no.4 and 5, namely, Chhotiya and Ram Chandra, in the cultivation. Defendants no.2 and 3 were the sons of Ram Sukha and defendant no.6 Bhim Singh, was main 'jagirdar', who had been made a defendant because of the provisions of Section 136 of the Act of 1947. When the plaintiffs came to know of inclusion of Chhotiya and Ram Chandra in Ashadh of Samvat 2009, they immediately asked these persons not to cultivate the land. They also withdrew the bullocks and implements given to Ram Sukha for use in cultivation as per the agreement with their mother. Defendants no.1 to 5 tried to take possession of the land by tying their cattle thereon, owing to which, a dispute arose between the parties. Criminal case was also registered. Defendants took wrongful possession of the land in Samvat 2009 and cultivated it. The prayer for ejectment of defendants, restoration of possession and compensation was also made.
4. Defendant Ram Sukha contested the suit stating that the well on the land has been constructed by his forefathers and that their family had been cultivating the land for a very long time. The Assistant Collector, Sawaimadhopur, after framing issues and recording the evidence of the parties, decreed the suit and judgment and decree has been confirmed in appeal by the Additional Commissioner on 31.05.1958. The Additional Commissioner stated that there was ample evidence on record to show that after the death of the father of plaintiffs, defendant Ram Sukha was made 'sajhedar' in Samvat 2007. Defendant Ram Sukha had admitted this in his statement recorded on 19.05.1953 before the Assistant Settlement Officer that after death of father of plaintiffs, he cultivated the land in dispute on 'sajha' and had paid 'seer' (share in the crop) to plaintiff-petitioner Mor Mukat Sing
