Back
PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT
Hari Ram s/o Adu Ram – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Per Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.
1. By way of the instant appeal, the appellant (writ petitioner) has challenged the order dated 24.04.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Hon’ble Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.603/2012 (Hari Ram Vs. Board of Revenue & Ors.) whereby the appellant’s writ petition, preferred against the judgment dated 06.09.2011 and order dated 13.01.2012 passed by the learned Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer, was dismissed.
2. The bone of contention in the present case is an agricultural land (khatedari land) comprising Khasra No.454, 455, 456, 457, 738, 470, 175, 176 & 213 total measuring 158 bighas and 3 biswas situated at Village Bhundana, Tehsil Bhopalgarh, District Jodhpur. The said land was under the khatedari of the appellant’s (writ petitioner) father; after the death of the appellant’s father, the said land as a whole was mutated in the name of the appellant. However, as per the claim of the appellant (writ petitioner), half share in the said land has been wrongly entered in the name of respondent No.3-Smt. Keshi (since deceased, represented through her LRs herein).
3. Pertaining to his claim, as above, in the land in question
The court emphasized the necessity of fair hearing in administrative proceedings, asserting that no party should be condemned unheard, particularly in property disputes.
Revenue authority had passed compromise decree in respect of lands then no cause of action or occasion can be said to have arisen to plaintiff for instituting subsequent suit.
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 ownership claims must be substantiated with clear evidence and that procedural errors in legal documents can significantly impact property rights.
Khatedari rights under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act are granted only to actual cultivators, not to those claiming through others without evidence of cultivation.
The court established that khatedari rights under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act cannot be revoked without due process, and that administrative orders lacking legal foundation are void.
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
