Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
NUPUR BHATI, J.
Laxman Singh S/o Shri Badan Singh – Appellant
Versus
Vijay Kumar S/o Shri Harchand – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4358/2024
Decided on : 08-05-2024
LAND DISPUTE - PROPERTY RIGHTS - Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963; Section 88 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 - The court discussed the provisions of the Limitation Act regarding the condonation of delay in filing appeals and the Rajasthan Tenancy Act concerning the rights of tenants and land ownership. The court emphasized the importance of proper legal procedures in property disputes, particularly the necessity of establishing clear ownership and the implications of errors in legal documents. The court's decision was influenced by the lack of timely action by the petitioner and the concurrent findings of the lower authorities regarding the legitimacy of the claims made.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner purchased land from Harchand in 1985 but faced issues with the execution of the sale deed and subsequent legal disputes over the land's ownership, including a suit for specific performance and appeals by strangers to the original suit.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner failed to establish clear ownership due to procedural errors and the lack of timely action in correcting discrepancies in legal documents. The concurrent findings of the Revenue Appellate Authority and the Board of Revenue were upheld.
Issues: Whether the appeal filed by the respondents was valid despite being filed after a significant delay, and whether the petitioner had established rightful ownership of the land in question.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the delay in filing the appeal was justified by the lower authorities, and the petitioner did not adequately prove ownership or address the discrepancies in the legal documents related to the land.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, affirming the decisions of the Revenue Appellate Authority and the Board of Revenue.
ORDER
NUPUR BHATI, J.
1. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition assailing the validity of the orders dated 05.07.2021 (Annex.11) and 28.02.2024 (Annex.15) passed by learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Nagaur and Board of Revenue, Ajmer respectively.
2. The brief facts of the case, from which the controversy originates are that the petitioner purchased the land in question ad-measuring 10 Bigha comprising of Khasra No.494, new Khasra number whereof is 912, of Village Mithdi, Teshil Nawa, District Nagaur from one Harchand by an Agreement to Sale dated 31.07.1985 (Annex.16) for a consideration of Rs.15,000/-. It is alleged in the writ petition the petitioner was put in possession of the land in question in the year 1985 soon after execution of the agreement i.e. during the lifetime of Sh. Harchand, however, the registered sale-deed could not be executed despite petitioner’s repeated request of said Sh. Harchand. Later on, Sh. Harchand died and thereafter the petitioner filed a suit for Specific Performance against the legal representatives of Sh. Harchand, who are respondents No.1 to 5 herein, in the court of Civil Judge, Nawa. The suit filed by the petitioner came to be decreed in favour of petition vide judgment and decree dated 13.05.2016 (Annex.1). Along with the suit, the petitioner got exhibited the agreement to sale as Ex.1 executed by late Sh. Harchand qua land ad-measuring 10 Bigha of Khasra No.494 and also produced other documents viz. Khasra Milan, Jamanbandi etc. Pursuant to the judgment and decree dated 13.05.2016 and in execution of the said decree the sale-deed was executed in favour of petitioner on 06.03.2017 (Annex.3) and mutation entry was also made in the name of petitioner in the revenue record on 12.04.2017 (Annex.4).
3. In the writ petition, it has been alleged that even prior to agreement to sale, the predecessor in title of the petitioner i.e. late Sh. Harchand filed a suit for regularization of the land in question in his name before the S.D.M. in the year 1984, which suit came to be decreed on 25.05.1985 (Annex.5). The agreement to sale executed in favour of petitioner on 31.07.1985 was subsequently registered under the orders of the competent court on 13.05.2016.
4. The petitioner has also referred the facts of a suit for permanent filed by the petitioner in the year 2020 against Mehboob S/o Liyakat Ali, who when tried to encroach over the land of the petitioner of Khasra No.494 (New Khasra No.912) and said Mehoob also filed counter claim claiming himself to be in possession of land of Khasra Nos.911, 157/912 and 1580/941. The suit filed by the petitioner and the counter claim filed by said Mehboob, came to be disposed of by learned S.D.O., Nawa vide its order dated 16.09.2020 (Annex.7), whereby the suit filed by the petitioner and the counter claim were allowed and Mehboob was restrained from disturbing the possession of the petitioner and it was also held that the petitioner would not be concerned with the land possessed by Mehboob.
5. The private respondents No.6 to 12, who have been styled as stranger (who are local residents of Nawa city) to the lis, after lapse of almost 35 years filed appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Nagaur (‘RAA’) in the year 2021 assailing the validity the decree dated 25.05.1985 passed by S.D.M., Nawa in Suit No.490/1984 taking advantage of wrong mentioning of Khasra number in the order. Alongwith the said appeal, application under for condoning the delay and right to file appeal was also filed.
6. In the writ petition, it is averred that the summons of the appeal were never served upon the petitioner or the legal heirs of late Sh. Harchand, and merely on the basis of report of the process server with regard to refusal to accept the summons, the learned RAA proceeded to treat said service of the summons to be sufficient/complete. The learned RAA vide its order dated 05.07.2021 (Annex.8) proceeded to allow the appeal filed by respondents No.6 to 12 while decid
The court established that ownership claims must be substantiated with clear evidence and that procedural errors in legal documents can significantly impact property rights.
The court reiterated that admissions in a written statement regarding property transactions create binding effects on claims of ownership, thereby restricting contesting rights based on previously es....
The court upheld that concurrent findings of fact by lower courts should not be disturbed unless proven perverse, reinforcing the principle that claims related to property must be initiated within th....
Revenue authorities lack jurisdiction to determine land title disputes, which must be settled in civil courts, rendering related appeals maintainable under proper legal challenges.
The main legal point established is that the absence of permission and validation under the A.P. (T.A.) Tenancy and Agriculture Land Act 1950 renders a sale transaction void and unlawful.
A void transaction cannot be regularized and a void document cannot be validated.
The court established that claims of land rights must be substantiated with timely action and proper documentation, and that concurrent findings of lower courts are to be respected unless there is a ....
The court emphasized the necessity of fair hearing in administrative proceedings, asserting that no party should be condemned unheard, particularly in property disputes.
The challenge to the permission under Section 54 of the Ordinance paled into insignificance as the sale deed was already executed and challenged before the Civil Court, and the authorities were not o....
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
