IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Sangeet Lodha, J.
Padam Singh – Appellant
Versus
Board of Revenue - Respondent
Civil Writ Petition No. 13101 of 2019
Decided On : 11-09-2019
LAND REVENUE - Partition - Limitation - Appeal - Delay - Condonation - Oral partition - Consent of co-sharers - Entries in revenue record - Challenge after inordinate delay - Not permissible.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners challenged an order of the Board of Revenue restoring an order recording the partition of land in the revenue record. The partition was made orally between the co-sharers, Madan Singh and Nenu Ram, with their consent in 1978. After 33 years, the legal heirs of Nenu Ram challenged the entries made in the revenue record, contending that the Assistant Land Record Officer had no jurisdiction to accept the partition. The Additional Divisional Commissioner set aside the order of partition, but the Board of Revenue restored it.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the appeal filed by the petitioners was hopelessly barred by limitation. The explanation furnished by the petitioners for the delay was not considered by the first appellate authority. The court also held that the entries were made with the consent of the original khatedars of the land and that the petitioners, who acquired the khatedari rights after the death of Nenu Ram, could not challenge the entries after an inordinate delay of 33 years.
Issues: 1. Whether the appeal filed by the petitioners was barred by limitation? 2. Whether the entries made in the revenue record with the consent of the original khatedars could be challenged by the petitioners after an inordinate delay?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The limitation period for filing an appeal under Section 75 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, is sixty days from the date of the order. The petitioners filed the appeal after a lapse of about 33 years, which was hopelessly barred by limitation. 2. The entries in the revenue record were made with the consent of the original khatedars of the land, Madan Singh and Nenu Ram. The petitioners, who acquired the khatedari rights after the death of Nenu Ram, could not challenge the entries after an inordinate delay of 33 years.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Sangeet Lodha, J.
This petition is directed against order dated 15.4.19 passed by the Board of Revenue Rajasthan, whereby a second appeal preferred by the petitioners against the order dated 7.6.13 passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Jodhpur, setting aside the order dated 8.7.78 passed by the Assistant Land Record Officer, has been allowed and accordingly, order dated 8.7.78, recording the factum of partition of the land in the revenue record has been restored.
2. The facts relevant are that the land comprising Khasra No.94 min, present Khasra No.142 measuring 23 bighas 5 biswa, Khasra No.490 present Khasra No.144 measuring 8 bighas 8 biswa, Khasra No.94/1 present Khasra No.143 measuring 7 biswa, Khasra No.488 present Khasra No.944 measuring 10 bighas 17 biswa, Khasra No.491 present Khasra No.939 measuring 3 biswa, Khasra No.490 min present Khasra No.941/1017 measuring 4 biswa situated in Village-Pilowani, Tehsil-Desuri, District-Pali, was joint khatedari land of Madan Singh s/o Maan Singh, Nenu Ram s/o Maan Singh, having 1/2 share each. In Samvat 2035, with the consent of joint khatedars Madan Singh and Nenu Ram, who were brothers, as per oral partition between them, the lands in their cultivatory possession were ordered to be recorded in their names vide order dated 8.7.78 passed by the Assistant Land Record Officer.
3. After a lapse of about 33 years, the legal heirs of Nenu Ram preferred an appeal under Section 75 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 ('the Act of 1956'), accompanied by an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, before the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Jodhpur, questioning the entries made in Khasra Revision (Relating to Partition) contending that Assistant Land Record Officer has no jurisdiction to accept the partition and enter the entries in the revenue record in this regard. It was contended that the entries as aforesaid were made without consent and thus, the order impugned being void, the appeal cannot be considered to be barred by limitation.
4. The Additional Divisional Commissioner opined that the order passed by the Assistant Land Record Officer acting without jurisdiction is void. Accordingly, the order dated 8.7.78 passed by the Assistant Land Record Officer was set aside by the Additional Divisional Commissioner vide order 7.6.13.
5. Aggrieved by the order dated 7.6.13, the respondents no.6 & 7 herein preferred second appeal before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue observed that the partition effected entered in the revenue record was never questioned by Madan Singh and Nenu Ram during their life time and thus, after their death the challenge to the same by legal heirs belatedly could not have been entertained by the Appellate Authority. Accordingly, the second appeal preferred by the respondents no.6 & 7 has been allowed. Hence, this petition.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that considering the merit of the dispute raised, the question with regard to inordinate delay in filing the appeal was not considered fatal by the Additional Divisional Commissioner and thus, the order passed on merits could not have been set aside by the Board of Revenue in perfunctory manner. Learned counsel submitted that the order dated 8.7.78 passed by the Assistant Land Record Officer acting without jurisdiction, is void and thus, cannot be given effect to. Learned counsel submitted that the order passed by the Assistant Land Record Officer without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners is violative of principle of natural justice.
7. On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the respondents no.6 & 7 submitted that the entries were made in the relevant record by the Assistant Land Record Officer as per the oral partition between the parties according to their cultivatory possession and therefore, the same cannot be faulted with. Learned counsel submitted that the first appellate authority while recording the contention of the pe
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.