Back
2023 Supreme(Raj) 1792
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
Subject
Property Law - Land Tenure Rights
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Legal principles - Mere cultivatory possession does not establish khatedari rights without sanctioned division orders by competent authority - Findings of earlier courts recorded that revenue entries in question were not conclusive for khatedari entitlements.
Facts of the case:
The appellants sought to establish khatedari rights over land based on contested revenue entries from 1971 and 1972. The claim was rejected by multiple courts citing lack of valid division orders.
Findings of Court:
The lower court's findings were upheld as there was no legitimate records supporting the claim.
Issues: The core issue centered on the validity of the revenue entries relating to khatedari rights.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court concluded that only sanctioned orders can dictate khatedari rights, disallowing reliance on prior revenue entries regarding possession alone.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Rahul Tiwari, Girish Khandelwal
For the Respondents: Gajender Singh Rathore
| 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.
