Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
NUPUR BHATI, J.
Satpal, S/o. Late Sh. Binja Ram and Anr. – Petitioners
Versus
The Chairman, Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation, Jaipur and Ors. – Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5359 Of 2022
Decided On : 28-05-2024
Writ Petition - Land Rights and Revenue Records - Article 226, Article 227 - The court examined the legality of the orders passed by the revenue authorities regarding land rights. It highlighted the importance of proper documentation and the need for timely action in land disputes. The court interpreted the provisions of Articles 226 and 227, emphasizing their role in ensuring justice and correcting errors in lower court decisions. The court concluded that the petitioners failed to establish their claims against the concurrent findings of the revenue courts.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the orders of the Board of Revenue and other revenue authorities regarding land rights over Khasra No. 127, which they claimed belonged to their father, Sh. Binjaram. The land was initially recorded in his Khatedari rights, but subsequent allotments and constructions by the respondent led to disputes over ownership and possession.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the revenue authorities had correctly determined that the land was acquired by Mandi Vikas Samiti and subsequently allotted to the respondent, who had established a Milk Chilling Centre. The court upheld the findings of the SDO and RAA that the petitioners' claims were barred by limitation and that the respondent had legal possession of the land.
Issues: Whether the petitioners had valid Khatedari rights over the disputed land and whether the suit filed by them was within the limitation period.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the concurrent findings of the revenue courts were based on substantial evidence, including the acquisition of land by Mandi Vikas Samiti and the subsequent allotment to the respondent. The court emphasized the importance of timely legal action in property disputes.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, affirming the decisions of the revenue authorities and upholding the respondent's rights over the land.
ORDER :
(Nupur Bhati, J.) :
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 26.04.2019 passed by Board of Revenue Ajmer (Annex.14), order dated 26.06.2003 passed by Revenue Appellate Authority Hanumangarh (Annex.12) and order dated 20.09.2002 passed by SDO Hanumangarh (Annex.9).
2. Brief facts of the case are that the father of the petitioners and respondents No. 2 to 4 late Sh. Binjaram had Khatedari rights qua land ad-measuring 15 Bigha comprising Khasra No.793/733 from the year 1989 situated at Rohi, Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh, as evident from the Jamabandi of Samvat Year 2009-2012 (Annex.1). Furthermore, in the settlement operations of Samvat Year 2020, Khasra No.127 was re-numbered and 10 Bigha 4 Biswa was recorded in Gair Khatedari of Sh. Binjaram as evident from Jamabandi (Annex.2). Furthermore in the Jamabandi of year 2029 to 2038 (Annex.3) Sh. Binjaram continued to be recorded as a Gair Khatedar and thus aggrieved by the same the petitioners along with the respondents No.2 to 4 and with the mother Bhanwari Devi filed a suit No. 110/1989, which was decreed by the SDO Nohar vide Judgement dated 16.12.1991 (Annex.4) while holding that the land in question remained in Khatedari of Sh. Binjaram and on the basis of the above judgment 16.12.1991, mutation (Annex.5) was entered in Revenue records.
3. Meanwhile in the year 1981 Additional Collector Secretary Mandi Samiti allotted the land measuring 400 x 600 yard of Khasra No.129 in favour of respondent No.1/defendant for establishment of Milk Chilling Centre, however, in the absence of any proper demarcation, the Milk Chilling Dairy was established on the land of Khasra No.127 and part of Khasra No.126. The petitioners resisted the action of the respondent No.1 in construction of the Chilling Center and a letter dated 03.03.1984 (Annex.6) was issued by the Tehsildar Nohar to the Project Officer, Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd, Hanumangarh stating therein that the allotment was made to Respondent No.1 RCDF and asked the Project Officer to remain present along with the record.
4. Moreover a revenue suit No.267/1993 dated 26.10.1983 (Annex.7) was filed by the petitioners before before SDO Nohar stating therein that the petitioners and respondents No.2 to 4 are Khatedars of the land of Khasra No.127 ad-measuring 10 Bigha 4 Biswa situated at Rohi Nohar wherein the respondent No.1 while encroaching the land proceeded with construction of Milk Chilling Centre illegally on the land in dispute.
5. Thereafter, written statements were filed on 1.08.1997 (Annex.8) stating therein it that the respondent/defendant was allotted the land on 22.06.1981 by Additional District Collector Secretary Mandi vikas Samiti Hanumangarh where Milk Processing Centre was constructed and further stated that the ancestors of the plaintiffs/petitioners had taken the land in exchange of the disputed land.
6. Meanwhile, a suit dated 21.07.1998 (Annex.10) was filed by Additional Collector cum secretary Mandi Vikas Samiti Hanumnagarh for correction of entries and seeking declaration and permanent injunction stating therein that the land was acquired in 1961 for Mandi Samiti for establishment of Milk Chilling Centre. An application under order 7 Rule 11 was filed by the petitioners, which was however rejected vide order dated 01.04.2004 and which was challenged before Board of Revenue and was dismissed on 16.06.2017.
7. The SDO Nohar framed 9 issues and thereafter the SDO Nohar dismissed the suit vide order dated 20.09.2002 (Annex.9). Thereafter the petitioner preferred an appeal (Annex.11) before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Hanumangarh, however, the appeal was dismissed vide order dated 26.06.2003 (Annex.12). Thereafter against the order passed by the RAA, Hanumangarh the petitioners preferred a second appeal (Annex.13) before the Board of Revenue, which was also dismissed vide order dated
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 established that ownership claims must be substantiated with clear evidence and that procedural errors in legal documents can significantly impact property rights.
The court established that khatedari rights must be respected and that revenue authorities must maintain accurate records without unjustified alterations.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for strong documentary evidence to prove continuous possession and khatedari rights over the land, and the significance of concurre....
The court emphasized the necessity of fair hearing in administrative proceedings, asserting that no party should be condemned unheard, particularly in property disputes.
The Board of Revenue exceeded its jurisdiction by reversing the Revenue Appellate Authority's well-reasoned findings based solely on the non-production of evidence, which was not a deliberate act of ....
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
