Back
VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
State Of Rajasthan – Appellant
Versus
Kalu – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Vinit Kumar Mathur, J. - The case is listed in the 'orders' category, however, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is being heard and decided finally today itself.
2. The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 13.08.2010 passed by the learned Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer in Appeal No. LR/9377/2008/UDAIPUR (Kalu v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.), whereby, the second appeal preferred by the respondent No. 1 was allowed.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No. 1-Kalu filed an Application before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Girwa under Section 136 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") stating that vide order dated 28.10.1977, the land situated in Village Savina Khera, Tehsil Girwa at Araji No. 531, 545, 546, 547 & 585/60 ad-measuring 2 Bigha 13 Biswas was allotted to Mst. Mangudi W/o Hariram Meghvanshi. The mutation entries of the same were recorded in the Samvat 2031 and the name of Mst. Mangudi finds place in the Jamabandi of Samvat 2031-34. On account of the said land having been wrongly entered in the Revenue Records as 'Bilanam Land', the same was allotted to Urban Impr
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.
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 established that khatedari rights must be respected and that revenue authorities must maintain accurate records without unjustified alterations.
The court emphasized the importance of proper exercise of revisional jurisdiction and the need for valid mutations in land disputes.
Petitioners cannot seek restoration of land title based on an unregistered agreement; proper legal procedures must be followed for title validation, and corrections made in revenue records are upheld....
The court clarified that revisions against orders of the Assistant Record Officer must be filed before the Record Officer, not the Commissioner, as per the U.P. Land Revenue Act.
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
