SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1976 Supreme(Raj) 12

Rajasthan High Court
Lohda, J.
Bhanwar Lal - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondents
S.B. Civil writ Petition No. 1038 of 1974
Decided On : February 20, 1976

Advocates Appeared:
H.C. Jain, for the Petitioner; H.N. Calla, Deputy Government Advocate.

Headnote:Constitution of India, Art. 226—Land in lawful possession of petitions—Assistant Collector has no jurisdiction to ask for police enquiry and declare same as religious endowment.

       

LODHA, J.—This writ petition is directed against the two orders of the Assistant Collector (S.D.O.), Nagaur dated March 13, 1974 (Ex 24) and March 29, 1974 (Ex. 25), whereby the leaned Assistant Collector held that 5-1/2 bighas of land out of the total 15-1/2 bighas situated in village Mundwa over which the petitioner is alleged to have his possession was "ghair mumkin abadi Devsthan" and may be recorded as such. The petitioners contention is that the impugned orders passed by the learned Assistant Collector are completely without jurisdiction and may be quashed. In this connection, it has also been urged that the impugned orders were passed without any opportunity having been given the petitioner of being heard.

2. In order to establish his right to the land in question, the petitioner has narrated the past history with respect to this land in great detail. But I do not consider it necessary to delve into all those details. For the purpose of disposal of this petition, it would be sufficient to state that the petitioner came into possession of the land in question (which was formerly comprised of Khasras No. 1780 to 1805 and is now bearing Khasras No. 1558 and 1559) under a duly registered sale deed Ex. 7 dated 4 9 1956 executed in favour of the petitioners father Banshilal by one Jaswant Singh. The title of the vendor Jaswantsingh has also been traced back to the original owners Balikhan and Kamruddinkhan to whom the land had been granted under a Patta dated 20th March 1925 (Ex. 2) by the former ruler of Jodhpur. It further appears that the revenue records pertaining to the land in question were prepared in the name of the petitioner who has also produced rent receipts as well as khasra-girdawari in his favour. There seems to have been some effort in the past to dislodge the petitioner from the land in question by alleging that the land in question was evacuee property and at another time that it was public property in the shape of mahal but those efforts proved abortive.

3. Coming to the present dispute, on 3.10-73, the villagers of village Mundwa made a complaint before the S.D.O. Nagaur that the land in question, i.e. 5-1/2 bighas, may be declared as religious endowment and the petitioner may be dispossessed from this land which may be handed over to the Devsthan Department. There is a Baradari (a sort of resting place) on the land in question which is enclosed by a compound wall. The S.D.O. forwarded this complaint to the S.H.O., Mundwa for enquiry and report and the S.H.O. Police made a recommendation to the S.D.O. that the land in question was a picnic spot for sight-seeing and was also of architectural interest and therefore it would be proper to hand it over to the Devsthan Department. On this recommendation, the Assistant Collector, Nagaur, without issuing any notice to the petitioner, by his order dated 13--3-74 held that the land in question is a religious place and consequently public property. He also observed that it was not a part of the agricultural land inasmuch as it was at a higher level and was enclosed with a compound wall and so he held that it may be recorded as "ghair mumkin abadi Devasthan" in place of aaraji awwal". This order was passed with respect to 5-1/2 bighas only which is covered by khasra No. 1559. By a subsequent order dated 29.9.74, the Assistant Collector directed the Tehsildar Nagaur to enter this land in the revenue records as "ghair mumkin abadi Devsthan".

4. It may be pointed out, here, that the opposite parties have not filed any reply to the writ petition. Learned Deputy Government Advocate has urged that the impugned orders of the Assistant Collector were only in exercise of his powers as Land Record Officer to correct the entries in the record of rights and if the petitioner felt aggrieved by this order of the Assistant Collector, he should have filed either an appeal under section 75 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act (which will hereinafter be called as the Act), or should have fil




Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top