Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH
Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, ACJ, Anil Kumar Upman, J.
Harkishan So Prabhati and Others – Appellants
Versus
Lallu and Others – Respondents
D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 329 of 2021, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19476 of 2018
Decided On : 07-02-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the case appeal (Para 1) |
| 2. arguments regarding khatedari rights and revenue entries (Para 2 , 5) |
| 3. court's analysis on concurrent findings (Para 3 , 4 , 6) |
| 4. decision to dismiss the appeal (Para 7) |
JUDGMENT :
1. This appeal arises out of order dated 02.03.2021 passed by learned Single Judge, whereby, writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the appellants, has been dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that, though the Trial Court recorded specific finding of fact with regard to division of khatedari rights between predecessor of the appellants and the respondents, namely Partiya and Ramsahay based on entries made in khasra dated 06.07.1971 and 17.11.1972 by which 3/4th of the land in dispute was recorded in the name of Partiya and 1/4th of the land in dispute was recorded in the name of Lallu, the First Appellate Court, Board of Revenue and learned Single Judge all have ignored that the finding passed by learned Trial Court was based on revenue entries made in revenue records and only on presumption drawn on the basis of earlier records of jamabandi, it has been held that Partiya and Lallu were having equal khatedari rights.
3. We have gone through the orders passed by the Trial Court, the First Appellate Court, Board of Revenue and learned Single Judge.
4. The order passed by the learned Trial Court was based on certain revenue entries dated 06.07.1971 and 17.11.1972. The First Appellate Court, Board of Revenue and learned Single Judge have recorded concurrent findings that the entries on the basis of which claim is being made by the appellants are not pertaining to khatedari rights but only based on cultivatory possession. Three Courts have held that mere cultivatory possession could not be made a basis to make entries in the khasra records without there being a valid order of division of khatedari rights by competent authority in duly drawn proceedings under the applicable revenue laws.
5. Though, learned counsel for the appellants sought to persuade us that the revenue entries made in khasra records on 06.07.1971 and 17.11.1972 were based on division of khatedari rights, there is no such order placed before us. Moreover, from the orders passed by all the authorities, it does not appear that any such order was led in evidence by the appellants.
6. In view of the above, the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge does not warrant any interference.
7. Appeal has not merits and is, therefore, dismissed.
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 ....
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 ....
Mutation entries in revenue record are only for a fiscal purpose and do not create any title/ownership right in favour of person in whose name mutation entry has been made.
Khatedari rights under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act are granted only to actual cultivators, not to those claiming through others without evidence of cultivation.
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
