Honble TIWARI, M.—This is a revision petition under Section 84 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1956’) against the order dated 12.8.1998 of Additional Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur passed in Appeal No. 24/1996.

2. Briefly stated facts are that late Rampyari widow of Ramsi was khatedar tenant of disputed khasra Nos. 118, 136, 242, 256, 459 and 482 total area 22 bighas 11 biswas situated in village Mansar Kheri of Tehsil Bassi in Jaipur District. On her death the disputed land was mutated in the name of Kailash son of Shri Narain vide mutation No. 408 dated 5.6.92 by Tehsildar, Bassi. Aggrieved against this mutation order dated 5.6.92 of Tehsildar, Bassi, non-applicant No.1 Chhoti went in appeal to Additional Collector dated 23.1.96 non-applicant No. 1 Chhoti filed second appeal before learned Additional Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur who by allowing the appeal, dismissed the order of Additional Collector, Jaipur dated 23.1.96 and stayed any decision in mutation under consideration till final decision of a suit pending before Assistant Collector. Aggrieved against this order dated 12.8.98 of Additional Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur the instant revision is preferred.

3. I have heard both the learned counsels.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the original khatedar of the disputed land measuring 22 bighas 11 biswas was Ramsi son of Ganesh. After the death of Ramsi, mutation was opened and attested in favour of his wife Rampyari vide mutation No. 243 dated 25.5.83. Thus Rampyari became khatedar of the disputed land. After death of Rampyari, mutation No. 408 was opened and sanctioned by Tehsildar on 5.6.92 in favour of Kailash son of Shri Narain in whose favour Rampyari had executed a registered Will transferring her entire land and properties. In the meantime Chhoti, the non-applicant No. 1, filed a suit before Assistant Collector claiming that the khatedar along with Ramsi with regard to the suit land. Earlier also order dated 25.5.83 of mutation No. 243 was challenged before Additional Collector who vide his decision dated 14.6.85 rejected mutation which was challenged before Additional Divisional Commissioner who upheld the mutation order of Tehsildar dated 25.5.83 by which the disputed land was mutated in favour of Rampyari . Learned counsel for the applicant argued that by the impugned order dated 12.8.98. Additional Divisional Commissioner has stopped succession on death of a recorded khatedar till decision of the suit filed by Chhoti. Chhoti has claimed her husband’s share and khatedari right along with Ramsi who died long back. Ultimate decision in the pending suit would be whether Chhoti’s late husband had any share in the disputed land or not; it cannot fully divest the dies succession must follow as per tenancy law. Succession cannot be held in abeyance, as has been held in 1992 RRD 227. Recorded khatedar Rampyari died without having any legal heir and she executed a registered will in favour of Kailash; as such mutation opened and attested by Tehsildar in favour of Kailash on account of the registered will is just and legal. Additional Divisional Commissioner has committed illegality in keeping succession in abeyance and stopping the mutation proceeding.

5. Opposing the above contentions, learned counsel for the non-applicants argued that the disputed land is ancestral land which was wrongly entered in the name of late Ramsi only, excluding his deceased brother Gopal. Wife of Gopal has filed a suit before the competent revenue Court for declaration of her tenancy rights along with the recorded khatedar. Since the husband of Chhoti - late Gopal - had also share in the ancestral land, it cannot be mutated in the name of Rampyari or Kailash alone. It is also argued that in the said Will Rampyari has transferred only 1/3 of her property whereas entire land is mutated in the name of Kailash. Chhoti holds one-half share in the entire disputed land and she can

Click Here to Read the rest of this document