Back
2008 Supreme(Raj) 1084
[Citation : RLW 2009(1) RJ 69 (Raj.)]
(Rajasthan High Court)
Smt. Lali & Ors. Vs. B.O.R. & Ors. (Vyas, J.)
HON'BLE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS, J.
Smt. Lali & Ors.
Versus
B.O.R. & Ors.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7235 of 2008, decided on 15.10.2008
G.R. Punia, for Petitioners
Headnote:Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, Sec. 88 and 188 — Suit for declaration and permanent injunction — Husband of the petitioner purchased an agricultural land from the respondent M and J — Possession handed over to the late husband of petitioner and he became sole khatedar of the land as bona fide purchaser from recorded khatedar — Revenue authority entered half of the land in the name of petitioner — Evidence showing that entire land was sold by M with whom J was residing — Respondent J has not even sold her share of land to late T — No sale-deed was executed by Smt. J — Held — Revenue Board rightly set aside the judgment of Assistant Collector. (Paras 7 & 8)
Petition dismissed.
jktLFkku dkrdkjh vf/kfu;e] 1955] /kkjk 88 o 188 & ?kks"k.kk ,oa LFkk;h fu"ks/kkKkFkZ okn & izkfFkZ;k ds ifr us izR;FkhZ ^,e* o ^ts* ls —f"k Hkwfe Ø; dh & izkfFkZ;k ds fnoaxr ifr dks mldk dCtk lqiqnZ fd;k vkSj fjdkWMsZM [kkrsnkj ls ln~Hkkoh Øsrk ds :i esa og ml Hkwfe dk ,d ek= [kkrsnkj gks x;k & jktLo izkf/kdkjh us izkfFkZ;k ds uke dsoy ml Hkwfe dk vk/kk Hkkx gh ntZ fd;k & lk{; ;g nkkZrk gS fd lEiw.kZ Hkwfe ^,e* }kjk csph xbZ ftlds lkFk ^ts* fuokl djrk Fkk & izR;FkhZ ^ts* us Hkwfe ds vius fgLls dks fnoaxr ^Vh* dks ugha cspk & Jhefr ^ts* }kjk dksbZ foØ; foys[k Hkh fu"ikfnr ugha fd;k x;k & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & jktLo e.My }kjk lgk;d dysDVj dk fu.kZ; vikLr djuk mfpr FkkA
;kfpdk [kkfjt dhA ¼in la- 8 o 9½
Hon'ble VYAS, J.—In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the judgment dated 17.2.1999 (Annexure-7) passed by Revenue Appellate Authority, Sirohi Camp Jalore and further the judgment dated 8.4.2008 (Annexure-10) passed by Board of Revenue and prayed that judgment and decree passed by A.C.J.M., Sanchore dated 30.6.1998 in Revenue Suit No.11/1996 may kindly be restored.
2. The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that late Thana husband of the petitioner had purchased an agricultural land in Khasra No.304 measuring 24 bighas and 1 biswa, which is situated at Village Tapi from the respondents - Modu and Smt. Joro w/o late Pandu (brother of Modu) vide registered sale deed dated 11.2.1974. After purchase, the possession of the land was handed over to the husband of the petitioner late Thana, therefore, he became sole khatedar of the land as bonafide purchaser from recorded khatedar but upon filing an application for entering his name as Khatedar by the petitioner on the basis of said sale deed, the revenue authority instead of entering the entire land only half of the land was entered in the name of the petitioner as Khatedar in the revenue record and remaining land was entered in the names of Pandu - husband of Smt. Joro. Therefore, the petitioner filed a suit before the Asstt. Collector under Section 88 and 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act for declaration and permanent injunction.
3. Learned A.C.M., Sanchore decreed the suit in favour of the petitioner vide judgment dated 30.6.1998 and entire land bearing Khasra No.304 measuring 24 bighas and 1 biswa of Village Tapi was ordered to be recorded in the name of the petitioners. The said judgment was challenged by respondent Joro w/o Pandu by way of filing an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Sirohi camp Jalore on the ground that no sale deed has been executed by her in favour of Late Thana husband of petitioner, therefore, on the basis of fact that there is no sale in favor of Late Thana by Smt. Joro W/o Pandu, the Revenue Appellate Authority vide judgment dated 17.2.1999 allowed the appeal filed by respondent Smt. Joro and set aside the judgment and decree passed by A.C.M., Sanchore in revenue suit No.11/1996.
4. Aggrieved by the judgment passed by Revenue Appellate Authority, Sirohi, an appeal was preferred before the Board of Revenue by the petitioners but learned Board of Revenue dismissed the appeal vide judgment and decree dated 8.4.2008 and maintained the judgment dated 17.2.1999 passed by Revenue Appellate Authority, Sirohi.
5. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that judgment rendered by A.C.M., Sanchore was in consonance with the provisions of law but the judgment and decree passed by Revenue Appellate Authority as well as by the Board of Revenue is illegal and contrary to the legal provisions of law because Modu being karta of Joint Hindu Family has make a sale of entire land including share of Smt. Joro W/o late Pandu (brother of Modu), who was residing with Modu after death of her husband Pandu, therefore, she is abide by sale of the share of her husband late Pandu by the Modu who was Karta of the Hindu Undivided Family.
6. I have perused the entire pleadings of the case.
7. In my opinion, the petitioners have come out with the case as narrated in para No.1 of the writ petition that entire land was purchased by late Thana husband of the petitioner No.1 vide registered sale deed dated 11.2.1974. The said sale deed has been produced on record. In my opinion, the petitioners have mis-leaded this Court because vide Annexure-1, no sale deed was executed by respondent Smt. Joro w/o late Pandu who was co-sharer of the land in question. In fact, the entire land was sold by Modu S/o Rupa with whom Joro widow of late Pandu was residing. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that being karta of the family he has rightly sold the entire land with the consent of Smt. Joro widow of
