Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
NUPUR BHATI, J.
Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur, through its Secretary. – Appellant
Versus
Ratan Lal S/o Vagta – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6035 of 2015
Decided on : 25-08-2023
Rectification of Land Records - Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 - Section 136 - The court dismissed the writ petition seeking to quash and set aside orders related to the rectification of land records. The court held that the Sub Divisional Officer had the power to rectify the mistake crept in during the settlement proceedings. The court also emphasized that its power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is limited to supervisory jurisdiction and cannot sit as an appellate court.
Fact of the Case:
The respondents filed an application under Section 136 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, seeking re-entry of their names as khatedars-tenants of the land. The Sub Divisional Officer allowed the application, but subsequent appeals and judgments led to conflicting decisions. The petitioners filed a writ petition seeking to quash the orders related to the rectification of land records.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Sub Divisional Officer had the power to rectify the mistake in the land records during the settlement proceedings. It also emphasized its limited power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, stating that it cannot sit as an appellate court.
Issues: The main issue was whether the orders related to the rectification of land records under Section 136 of the Act of 1956 were valid and whether the courts below had exceeded their jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Sub Divisional Officer had the power to rectify the mistake crept in during the settlement proceedings. It also emphasized its limited power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, stating that it cannot sit as an appellate court.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed as the court did not find any error apparent on the face of the record.
ORDER :
(1) The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:-
ii) That if during the pendency of the writ petition the petitioner is dispossessed from the land in question or if the physical possession is taken away by the respondents from the petitioner then the same be declared illegal and the respondents may kindly be directed to restore the possession in favour of the petitioner forthwith with cost;
iii) that if any other order/direction/action is passed/ taken during the pendency of the writ petition prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner, the same also be kindly be called for and be declared illegal and be quashed and set aside.”
(2) The facts in nutshell giving relevant for the present controversy are that the respondents Nos.4 to 6 and Smt. Kanku Bai (deceased) filed an application under Section 136 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (for short, ‘the Act of 1956’) before the Sub Divisional Officer, Girva stating therein that before settlement they were recorded as Khatedars of the land, measuring 5 bighas situated in Khasra No.369/3. Thereafter, the land in question was recorded as Bila-Naam in the new settlement and the same was later on allotted to the petitioner-Trust by the District Collector. The old Khasra No.369 was later on turned to Khasra No.619-625 under the new settlement and the land was also mutated in the name of petitioner-Trust as Mutation No.1628 dated 07.03.2005. Hence, it was prayed by them that the land be re-entered in their names.
(3) The Sub Divisional Officer, vide its order dated 28.11.2007 (Annex.P/1) allowed the application aforesaid. Aggrieved by the order dated 28.11.2007, passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Udaipur which was allowed vide order dated 18.12.2008 (Annex.P/2) setting aside the order dated 28.11.2007, passed by the Sub Divisional officer.
(4) Against the order dated 18.12.2008, passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Udaipur, the respondents Nos.4 to 6 and Smt. Kanku Bai (deceased) filed an appeal before the Board of Revenue, which was allowed vide judgment dated 21.12.2009 (Annex.P/3) while setting aside the order dated 18.12.2008 passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner and the order dated 28.11.207 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer was restored.
(5) The petitioners, being aggrieved with the judgment dated 21.12.2009, preferred special appeal before the Division Bench of the Board of Revenue. Both the members of the Board of Revenue passed separate judgments dated 30.07.2013 (Annex.P/5) and 31.07.2013 (Annex.P/6). Vide judgment dated 30.07.2013, the Member of the Board of Revenue dismissed the appeal, whereas vide judgment dated 31.07.2013, the member of the Board of Revenue allowed the appeal. The matter was, therefore, placed before another member of the Board of Revenue, who vide judgment dated 13.11.2014 (Annex.P/7), agreed with the judgment dated 30.07.2013 (Annex.P/5) whereby the appeal was dismissed.
(6) Hence, the petitioners, being aggrieved with the judgments dated 13.11.2014 (Annex.P/7), 30.07.2013 (Annex.P/5) and the judgment dated 28.11.2007 (Annex.P/1), preferred the present writ petition.
(7) Learned counsel for the petitioners drew attention of this Court towards the provisions of Section 136 of the Act of 1956, which reads as under:-
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 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.
Clerical errors in land revenue records can be corrected to reflect true ownership, and such corrections should not be interfered with if substantiated.
Settlement authorities cannot alter confirmed land assignments without legal basis, emphasizing the need to respect prior land grants and judicial confirmations.
The scope of judicial review is confined to decision making process and not the decision per se.
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
