Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
Ashok Kumar Gaur, J.
Asha Devi Agarwal – Appellant
Versus
Board Of Revenue For Rajasthan At Ajmer & Ors. – Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9521/2013 Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11851/2013 & S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11852/2013
Decided On : 11-04-2022
Mutation - Land Dispute - Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 - Section 82, Section 84 - The court quashed the order of the Board of Revenue and the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Ajmer, and directed the restoration of the disputed land to the original owners. The court found that the Board of Revenue had committed grave legal and jurisdictional errors, and had wrongly exercised its revisional jurisdiction. The court held that the mutations were void ab initio and directed the restoration of the land to the original owners.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the order of the Board of Revenue, which had quashed the mutations and directed the restoration of the disputed land to the original owners. The petitioner argued that the Board of Revenue had committed grave legal and jurisdictional errors and had wrongly exercised its revisional jurisdiction. The petitioner also contended that the suit filed by the respondent was barred by limitation, and the respondent had failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the appeals.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Board of Revenue had committed grave legal and jurisdictional errors and had wrongly exercised its revisional jurisdiction. The court held that the mutations were void ab initio and directed the restoration of the land to the original owners. The court also found that the suit filed by the respondent was barred by limitation, and the respondent had failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the appeals.
Issues: The main issues were whether the mutations were void ab initio, whether the suit filed by the respondent was barred by limitation, and whether the Board of Revenue had wrongly exercised its revisional jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Board of Revenue had committed grave legal and jurisdictional errors, and had wrongly exercised its revisional jurisdiction. The court also found that the mutations were void ab initio and directed the restoration of the land to the original owners.
Final Decision: The court quashed the order of the Board of Revenue and the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Ajmer, and directed the restoration of the disputed land to the original owners. No costs were awarded.
JUDGMENT
1. These three writ petitions are decided by this common order as the petitioner has challenged the order dated 10.05.2013 passed by the Board of Revenue deciding three revision petitions filed by the petitioner. The petitioner has also challenged common judgment of the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Ajmer dated 16.06.2005 rejecting three appeals, which arose from a common order passed by the District Collector, Ajmer dated 06.06.2003, preferred by the respondent No.2 against mutation Nos.325 dated 25.11.1967, 344 dated 25.05.1968 & 338 dated 29.11.1984.
2. The facts, as pleaded by the petitioner, in brief, in the writ petitions are that one Deepa S/o Manphool Meena, was recorded Khatedar tenant of the land pertaining to Khasra No.255/2 (Old No.682) measuring 14 Bighas and 5 Biswas in Village Farasiya, Tehsil Kishangarh, District Ajmer. The aforesaid land was sold by Ghasiram and Dhanna both sons of Deepa through a registered sale deed dated 06.02.1962 to one Bhagirath S/o Ramprasad Mahajan and possession was also transferred to him. (D.B. SAW/1052/2013 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
3. In Samvat Year 2020 in the settlement operations, the new Khasra No.255/2 was carved out from the old Khasra Number and the land was recorded in favour of Ghasiram and Dhanna both sons of Deepa and additionally name of Ratna S/o Nathu was also entered showing his equal share in the land. The petitioners alleged that the Settlement Authorities had no right to insert the name of Ratna S/o Nathu, who was never a co-tenant of the land before the entry in jamabandi in the Samvat Year 2020.
4. The petitioner has pleaded that on the basis of the sale deed dated 06.02.1962, a writing was executed by Ratna on 25.10.1963 and mutation proceedings were initiated but on an objection with regard to registration of document and prohibited caste, the mutation No.209 was rejected and when the matter was further pursued, it was clarified that Meena in Ajmer District was not a prohibited caste at that time and the mutation No.325 was sanctioned vide order dated 23.11.1967.
5. On 12.06.1968 Bhagirath sold the land to Nityanand S/o Gangadutt vide registered sale deed and mutation No.344 dated 12.06.1968 was sanctioned in this regard by the Tehsildar. The said Nityanand sold the land to the present petitioner vide registered sale deed dated 06.07.1974 and handed over the possession of the land to the petitioner.
6. On the basis of the aforesaid sale deed, the Tehsildar passed order dated 16.07.1974 for recording the land in favour of the petitioner. On 29.11.1984, the mutation No.338 was sanctioned in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner after purchasing the land vide registered sale deed dated 06.07.1974 had applied for (D.B. SAW/1052/2013 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) conversion of the land of 500 Sq.Mtrs. out of the aforesaid 14 Bighas and 5 Biswas of the land for industrial purposes and the District Collector, Ajmer passed the order dated 04.01.1980 for conversion of 500 Sq.Mtrs. of land for industrial purposes.
7. The respondent No.2-Ratna on 11.12.1992 filed an application under Section 82 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 before Tehsildar for making reference with regard to the three mutations alleging them to be illegal. The petitioner had received notice of the said application and reply was filed and as such the matter was dropped there only as no reference was made by the Tehsildar.
8. In the year 2001, the respondent No.2 filed three appeals before the District Collector, Ajmer being appeals No.25/2001, 26/2001 and 27/2001 questioning the mutations Nos.325 dated 25.11.1967, 344 dated 25.05.1968 & 338 dated 29.11.1984. The respondent No.2 also filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeals. The petitioner filed replies to the applications for condonation of delay and the District Collector vide
The court emphasized the importance of proper exercise of revisional jurisdiction and the need for valid mutations in land disputes.
Revenue courts cannot adjudicate the legality and validity of a registered sale deed in summary proceedings, and there are exceptions under which a Writ petition may be entertained against orders pas....
Mutation proceedings under the Land Revenue Act are summary in nature and do not confer title; aggrieved parties must seek resolution in civil courts.
Civil Law - Revenue Board - Jurisdiction - It is definitely within domain of revenue authorities to take a final decision on issue as to whether lands in question are Government lands and if so, whet....
The mutation application based on an unchallenged sale deed cannot be dismissed in summary proceedings, affirming the Board of Revenue's review authority under the U.P. Land Revenue Act.
The court affirmed that a revision petition under the ROR Act can be filed without a time limit, emphasizing the need for a fresh enquiry into land ownership claims, especially in cases of alleged fr....
The court emphasized that the order of mutation neither confers nor extinguishes any right of the parties over the land and that the purpose of mutation is only to collect government revenue from a p....
The revisional jurisdiction under Section 9 of the ROR Act cannot be exercised after a long delay, and the settled rights of a person under the ROR Act cannot be unsettled after a lapse of more than ....
Complicated inheritance disputes regarding land rights should be resolved through regular civil suits, not summary mutation proceedings, as determined under applicable land laws.
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
