Back
MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Parmeshwar – Appellant
Versus
Naurang – Respondent
ORDER
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner/applicant assailing the legality and validity of the judgment dated 17.02.2020 passed by the Board of Revenue Rajasthan, Ajmer (for brevity, 'the BoR') in Special Appeal/LR/2019/2504/Sikar whereby, the special appeal filed against the judgment dated 14.05.2019 passed by the BoR in Appeal/LR/6430/2013/Sikar affirming the judgement dated 28.10.2013 passed by the Court of Additional Divisonal Commissioner, Jaipur in Appeal No.71/2012 reversing the judgement dated 29.06.2012 passed by the Sub- divisional Officer, Sikar allowing the application filed by the petitioner/applicant under Section 136 of Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (for brevity, 'the Act of 1956'), has been dismissed.
2. The facts in brief relevant for decision of the writ petition are that the petitioner filed an application under Section 136 of the Act of 1956 stating therein that land measuring 2 bigha 17 biswa (0.72 hect.) of the erstwhile Khasra No.342/2, Village Radhakishanpura, Tehsil & District Sikar was recorded in his khatedari; however, in the new revenue record, while carving out new Khasra No.192/1056, the area has been reduced to 0.35 hect. The appl
The court emphasized the limited power of Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the authority of the Sub Divisional Officer to rectify mistakes in land records.
The proceedings under Section 136 of the Act of 1956 are summary in nature and cannot be treated as a suit, thus the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is not maintainable.
Clerical errors in land revenue records can be corrected to reflect true ownership, and such corrections should not be interfered with if substantiated.
The court upheld the Board of Revenue's decision that the petitioner was neither a necessary nor a proper party to the proceedings, affirming the dismissal of his application.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the right of a party to seek correction of entries in revenue records under Section 136 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956.
The authority of the Land Record Officer to correct errors in the revenue record during settlement operations and the inability to change the nature of the land through such corrections.
Ownership of land recorded under a deity cannot be transferred; any attempts to do so result in void transactions, reaffirming perpetual minor status of deities.
The court upheld the concurrent findings of the revenue Courts and emphasized the limited jurisdiction of the court in issuing directions under a writ petition.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
