Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
NUPUR BHATI, J.
Legal Representation of Man Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3924 of 2000
Decided on : 27-09-2023
Land Revenue Act - Dispute over land ownership - Section 136, Section 123, Section 124, Section 125 - The court discussed the interpretation of Section 136 of the Land Revenue Act and its application in correcting errors in the record of rights. It also highlighted the continuous process of maintaining land records and the authority of the Land Record Officer to correct errors during settlement operations. The court emphasized that the errors in the revenue record can be corrected by the competent authority and that the nature of the land cannot be changed through such corrections.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners purchased land from respondent No. 6, who was recorded as khatedar of the land. Disputes arose regarding the ownership of the land, and multiple orders and appeals were made by the parties involved.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the land originally belonged to a deity and that the sale deed executed by respondent No. 6 in favor of the petitioners was void ab initio. It also noted the malafide nature of the land transfer and the lack of legal right created in favor of the petitioners.
Issues: Dispute over land ownership, validity of sale deed, and the authority of the Land Record Officer to correct errors in the record of rights.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the authority of the Land Record Officer to correct errors in the revenue record during settlement operations and highlighted that the errors in the revenue record can be corrected by the competent authority. It also emphasized that the nature of the land cannot be changed through such corrections.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed as it was devoid of merit.
JUDGMENT :
1. The instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:-
ii) by an appropriate writ, order or direction the judgment dated 29/8/1991, ANNEXURE P/3, judgment dated 22/3/1993, ANNEXURE P/4 and the judgment dated 11/10/2000 ANNEXURE P/5 may kindly be quashed and set aside and the order dated June 12,1986, ANNEXURE P/2 may kindly ordered to be maintained;
iii) by an appropriate writ, order or direction grant any other relief, which is considered just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case;
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No. 6 Gorakhnath was holding khatedari right in land of khasra No. 714 -Rakba 12 bigha 15 biswas, Khasra No. 704 - Rakba 6 Bigha 13 Biswas, Khasra No.742 - Rakba 11 bigha 13 Biswas. Khasra No. 741- Rakba 7 Bigha Gair mumkin Bera, total Rakba 36 Bigha 19 Biswas of all four Khasras; respondent No.6 by separate registered sale deeds sold the above land to the petitioners on 30.6.1986 and since then the petitioners are in cultivatory possession over the land in question and the mutation has also been entered in their names on the basis of the registered sale deed and they are the recorded khatedar of the above mentioned land.
3. The respondent No.6 Gorakhnath was recorded as khatedar of the above mentioned land way back in the samvat year 2010 however vide Corrigendum (Shuddhipatra No.9) dated 3.11.1982 (AnnexureP/1) his name was deleted from it and in his place the land was entered in the name of Doli Banam Asan. The respondent No. 6 filed an application before Sub Divisional Officer (SDO) Sojat for cancellation of the said shuddhipatra dated 3.11.1982 and the SDO Sojat vide order dated 12.06.1986 (Annexure P/2) ordered that the position prior to 3.12.1982 be maintained and thus cancelled the Corrigendum (shuddhipatra).
4. That against the order dated 12.06.1986 passed by SDO the respondent No.5 Mangenath filed an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority II Jodhpur (Hereinafter referred to as RAA in short) without impleading petitioner as the party, However the appeal filed by respondent. No. 5 was allowed by the Revenue Appellate Authority II Jodhpur vide order dated 29.08.1991 (Annexure-P/3), However as the petitioners were not impleaded as party in the appeal filed by respondent No.5 thus they filed a review application before the Revenue Appellate Authority II Jodhpur which was rejected vide order dated 22.03.1993. (Annexure-P/4).
5. Against the order dated 22.03.1993 the petitioners filed a revision petition before the Board Of Revenue, Ajmer, Rajasthan (hereinafter referred to as BOR in short) and the BOR rejected the revision vide order dated 11.10.2000. (Annexure-P/5).
6. Moreover the land in question was recorded in the name of respondent No. 6 Gorakhnath son of shri Lal Nath as mentioned in Khatoni- Jama bandi. (Annexure-P/6) and the name of petitioners on the basis of the registered sale deed dated 30.6.1986 was entered in the revenue record, in Namantkaran Register. (Annexure- P/7); and as a result of Namantkaran No. 816 dated 31.07.1986 the petitioners’ names were recorded as khatedar in Jama bandi Khatoni. (Annexure-P/8).
7. The petitioners being aggrieved of the order dated 11.10.2000 passed by the Board of Revenue Ajmer, (Annexure P/5) and the order dated 29.08.1991 and 22.03.1993 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority II Jodhpur the petitioners have preferred this writ petition.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the order dated 29.08.1991 and 23.03.1993 passed by the RAA and 11.10.2000 passed by the BOR are without jurisdiction and are liable to be quashed and set aside. He further submitted that the land in question originally belonged to respondent No.6 since the samvat year 2010 as he was recorded as khatedar of the land in question. Moreover the land in question was never entered as Khud k
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 main legal point established is the rightful ownership of Deity land and the invalidity of mutations in favor of unauthorized parties.
Land recorded as khudkasht land in the name of the Temple belongs to the deity, and the pujari/shebait cannot acquire such land.
The legal principle established is that tenants cultivating land for a deity do not confer tenancy rights to the deity, and such land becomes Khatedari of the tenant under the Rajasthan Land Reforms ....
Tenants cultivating land for deities do not acquire Khatedari rights unless they have a direct relationship with the state, as clarified by the Rajasthan Land Reforms & Resumption of Jagir Act, 1952 ....
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
