Ratana Devi W/o Panna Lal Nagal vs State of Rajasthan

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Raj) 108

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
NUPUR BHATI, J.
Ratana Devi W/o Panna Lal Nagal – Appellant
Versus
The State of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10157 of 2016
Decided on : 13-04-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Pritam Solanki
For the Respondent: Mr. Loon Karan Purohit

Headnote:
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 226/227 – Land - Sale-deed - Possession - Petitioner hd also purchased another agricultural land, bearing Khasra Nos.74 min, 75 min, 76 and 78 through registered sale-deed dated ad measuring 81 bighas 12 biswas - Petitioner had also purchased another piece of land bearing Khasra Nos., ad measuring 353 bighas 6 biswas by way of another registered sale-deed dated 2 - Petitioner was in possession of the aforementioned land and was cultivating the same but since , a dispute arose when some persons entered the land in question of petitioner and claimed said land to be theirs - Whether petitioner had submitted the application for demarcation of land in dispute before issuance of Circular dated (Annex.33) and whether respondents have given retrospective effect to said circular for determining quantum of demarcation fee - Once petitioner had submitted application prior to issuance of Circular dated then respondents should have determined the quantum of demarcation fee in accordance with the Circular dated (Annex.5), whereas respondents have determined same in accordance with Circular dated. Para 25
Finding of Court :
Additional Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner has also made a communication to District Collector dated for removing encroachments from the land of petitioner as well as for demarcation of land of petitioner - It cannot be said that petitioner has not submitted application to authority incharge of apprising issue of demarcation of land in question of petitioner - Respondents have wrongly applied circular dated (Annex.33) upon petitioner for determining quantum of demarcation fee and communication dated by which petitioner has been directed to deposit as demarcation fee is unjust and arbitrary - Respondents, while considering the fact that petitioner had duly submitted application to the Land Records Officer/District Collector, Bikaner prior to coming into force the Circular dated came into existence, ought to have considered case of petitioner for calculating the demarcation fee in light of Circular dated.
Result : Writ petition is allowed.

ORDER :

1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:-

“(i) by an appropriate writ, order or directions, the impugned Order dated 4.7.2016 may kindly be declared illegal and be quashed and set aside and it may be declared that the application of the petitioner will be governed by the circular dated 12.4.2001 and the circular dated 18.11.2015 be applicable in the present case.

(ii) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondent be directed to demarcate the land in question with the Police aid.

(iii) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the circular dated 18.11.2015 (Annex.33) may kindly be declared illegal and be quashed and set aside.

(iv) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court considers just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.

(v) Cost of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner.”

2. The petitioner has set up a case that he had purchased a land bearing Khasra Nos.74, 75 and 348, ad measuring 100 bighas in Khasra Nos.74 and 75 and 32 bighas 12 biswas in Khasra No.348 and the same has been substantiated by placing on record a copy of the registered sale-deed dated 24.10.2005 (Annex.1).

3. The petitioner hd also purchased another agricultural land from Kanta Devi, Kesav, Madhav, etc., bearing Khasra Nos.74 min, 75 min, 76 and 78 through registered sale-deed dated 24.04.2007, ad measuring 81 bighas 12 biswas. The petitioner had also purchased another piece of land bearing Khasra Nos.76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 83 and 84, ad measuring 353 bighas 6 biswas by way of another registered sale-deed dated 28.03.2014. The petitioner was in possession of the aforementioned land and was cultivating the same but since 04.10.2015, a dispute arose when some persons entered the land in question of the petitioner and claimed the said land to be theirs.

4. It came to the knowledge of the petitioner that Shankerlal, Devkishan, Fatehchand, Ganesh Das, Narsingh Das, Shyam Sunder, Kushal Chand, Ghanshyam Das and Megh Raj, who were having the land ad measuring 362 bighas, has sold the said land showing it to be ad measuring 1300 bighas and also got the land registered by way of a forged sale-deed.

5. The petitioner submitted an application to the concerned SHO, P.S. Bichhwal on 06.10.2015. The petitioner intended to get the land in dispute demarcated in light of the Circular dated 12.04.2001 (Annex.5). In the said Circular, the concerned person, who was interested in getting the land demarcated was required to deposit travelling allowance, dearness allowance and other allowances.

6. In pursuance to of the aforementioned Circular dated 12.04.2001, the petitioner submitted an application on 07.10.2015 and 08.10.2015 to the Tehsildar, Bikaner for demarcation of his land. The petitioner also submitted a complaint to the District Collector, Bikaner dated 08.10.2015 for removing the encroachments and for dis-mentaling the pakka wall around the field of the petitioner. In this complaint, the petitioner has also mentioned that he had already submitted an application for demarcation of his land. The petitioner had also submitted a few applications to the Superintendent of Police, Bikaner ventilating his grievance as well as demarcation of his land.

7. The petitioner preferred one complaint dated 23.10.2015 before the Inspector General of Police, Bikaner Range, Bikaner mentioning inter-alia that despite the direction of the Superintendent of Police, Bikaner for demarcation of the land, no action whatsoever was taken by the concerned SHO.

8. Upon such complaint made by the petitioner on 23.10.2015, the SHO, P.S. Bichhwal made a communication to the S.D.O., Bikaner requesting him for demarcation of the land in dispute. Further, the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner made a communication dated 29.10.2015 to the District Collector, Bikaner as well as th