Back
2015 Supreme(Raj) 514
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
MOHAMMAD RAFIQ, J.
Sukhdev Ram (deceased) now represented by Shyam lal Sharma – Appellant
Vs.
Director, Consolidation of Lands & Ors. – Respondent
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3071/1987
Decided on : 7.8.2015
Shri N.K. Maloo, Sr. Advocate with Shri V.K. Tamoliya, Shri Narendra Kumar Singhal for the petitioner
Shri R.S. Mehta with Shri D.S. Poonia for the respondents.
Headnote:
Consolidation Act - Section 29 - Rajasthan Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1954 - Section 7,8, 21(5), sub-section (2) of Section 4. 21 and 20 – Sale deed - Consolidation of the revenue lands - Order of Settlement Officer - Physical possession of the land - Petitioner died so also the original respondent - Respondent no. respondent no - Respondent no. respondent no. fact one of the L.Rs. of original respondent no also died and his legal heirs were brought on record - Against seven of the deceased respondents - Legal heirs had to be impleaded as party-respondents to represent their interest - Fortunate are those two original respondents have survived life of this litigation before this Court - It is indeed a sad commentary on working of our judicial system a writ petition should have taken long thirty eight years to get decided - Nevertheless one must derive solace in the fact that after all this litigation as far as first stage before Single Bench of High Court is concerned, is coming - Litigation has had a checkered history commencing from early 60s when notification was published in official gazette by Government on 21st for consolidation of revenue lands of village - Consolidation Officer appointed under Rajasthan Holdings Act, 1954 prepared scheme of consolidation sought to consolidate the scattered pieces lands of tenants into different for allotment to the tenants according to the existing valuation of the lands. Chak no.32, 33, 34, 46 and 49 were formed prior to 1961 filed objections against the draft scheme of consolidation before the Consolidation Officer on the grounds that the entire land on wall has not been properly valued - Lands of the petitioner had not been properly framed facility of irrigation was also not considered and convenient size and shape of the land was also not considered – Held, Proceedings in appeal before the Settlement Officer/Collector nor were they provided opportunity of hearing - Lacuna in the order passed by Settlement Officer and Collector, does not stand rectified by mere reason of infraction of the other provisions prescribing transfer of land during currency of the conciliation proceedings as alleged by petitioner - That part, in any case, has been taken note of by the revisional authority that sale of land by registered sale deed culminated into mutation in his favour by Gram Panchayat - Appeal preferred by petitioner against such mutation was dismissed by order - Fact that parties are in possession of their respective share for last 25 years - And now if the period of 28 years of pendency of this writ petition is added thereto, this period would come to 53 years - Arguments of petitioner that he was put in possession by the revenue officials and the respondents have forcefully taken possession of land in dispute, also does not improve his case in so far as the basic lacuna in the order of Settlement Officer and Collector is concerned - Criminal complaint filed by petitioner against respondents alleging trespass at instance of petitioner has also failed - Impugned order dated passed by Land Settlement Commissioner-cum-Director and that of Settlement Officer - Writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed
Sukhdev Ram, the original writ petitioner, approached this Court almost three decades ago, assailing the order dated 15.6.1987 (Annexure-14) passed by the Land Settlement Commissioner-cum-Director (Consolidation) and the order dated 17.5.1965 (Annexure-6) passed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation). Sukhdev Ram filed this writ petition as far back as 12.11.1987, which has remained pending before this Court for as long as 28 years. During this interregnum, original writ-petitioner, Sukhdev Ram died, so also the original respondent no.5- Goverdhan, respondent no.7-Hanuman, respondent no.8-Prabhat, respondent no.10-Deviya, respondent no.11-Bhonrya, respondent no.12-Ladu have died. In fact, one of the L.Rs. of original respondent no.11 i.e. Lachchi Ram also died and his legal heirs were brought on record. As against seven of the deceased respondents, 38 legal heirs had to be impleaded as party-respondents to represent their interest. But then fortunate are those two original respondents, who have survived the life of this litigation before this Court. It is indeed a sad commentary on the working of our judicial system that a writ petition should have taken long thirty eight years to get decided. Nevertheless, one must derive solace in the fact that after all this litigation, as far as the first stage before the Single Bench of the High Court is concerned, is coming to end.
2. This litigation has had a checkered history, commencing from early 60's when notification was published in the official gazette by the Government on 21st April, 1960 for consolidation of the revenue lands of village Bhampur Kalan of Tehsil Jamwa Ramgarh, District Jaipur. The Consolidation Officer appointed under Rajasthan Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1954 (for short-`the Act') prepared the scheme of consolidation, whereunder he sought to consolidate the scattered pieces of khatedari lands of the tenants into different chaks, for allotment to the tenants according to the existing valuation of the lands. Chak no.32, 33, 34, 46 and 49 were formed prior to 1961. Sukhdev filed objections against the draft scheme of consolidation before the Consolidation Officer on the grounds that the entire land on wall “bawri wala” has not been properly valued, the chak of the barani lands of the petitioner had not been properly framed; facility of irrigation was also not considered and convenient size and shape of the land was also not considered. According to Sukhdev, lands of khasra nos.312 measuring 2.18 hectares, khasra no.314 measuring 1.17 hectares and khasra no.315 measuring 4.11 hectares, which could be conveniently irrigated by him from his own well situated in khasra no.303, have been improperly distributed to others. While khasra no.312 in chak no.46 and khasra no.315 in chak no.34 have been given to Goverdhan, khasra no.314 and 315 in chak no.33 have been given to Mangilal. According to him, lands of khasra nos.312, 314 and 315 are quite adjacent to the chak no.32 of his barani land comprising of khasra no.303, 304, 305, 306, 309, 299, 307, 308 and 310. He therefore pleaded that lands of khasra nos.305, 307, 309 and 308 may be given to Mangi Lal and Goverdhan. Chak no.26 allotted to Devilal, Lada Ram and Bhonrilal S/o Mangilal is quite adjacent to the lands of khasra no.305, 307, 308 and 309 offered by the petitioner.
3. Consolidation Officer partly accepted his objections and allotted an additional chak regarding chahi land to him, but rejected the prayer for exchange of barani lands by order dated 19.9.1962. Petitioner-Sukhdev preferred an appeal against the aforesaid order before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation), who partly accepted the appeal and petitioner was directed to join all the concerned persons as parties. Petitioner moved an application for joining the co-sharers of “bawri wala” well also together with Mangilal, who was allotted khasra no.314 and 315 and Goverdhan, who was allotted khasra no.312. T
