Back
2009 Supreme(Raj) 1244
[Citation : RLW 2010(1) RJ 150 (HC)]
(Rajasthan High Court)
Mukhtiar Vs. State & Ors. (Gupta, J.)
HON'BLE N.P. GUPTA, J.
HON'BLE GOVIND MATHUR, J.
Mukhtiar
Versus
State & Ors.
D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 332 of 2001, decided on 05.11.2009
S.L. Jain, for Appellant/Petitioner;
Dalip Singh Rajvi, for Respondent
Headnote:Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, Sec. 193 — Setting aside allotment — Land was maufi Gurudwara — One S.S. Claimed that he was holding it in the capacity of Granthi Mafidar as such he was entitled for conferment of Khatedari rights u/S. 193 — He sold the disputed land to the petitioner by a registered sale deed — Held — The land in question was not held by the appellant as "his village service grant", rather it was a land recorded as land of Gurudwara, and it could possibly not be allotted to the petitioner u/S. 193 — It was not shown to have been allotted to him in accordance with the otherwise regular process of allotment — Where interference u/Art. 226 jurisdiction results into bringing about such a situation of restoration of another illegality, interference is required to be declined — The land standing in the name of Gurudwara having been either allotted to or recorded in the name of Gurudwara could not be a subject matter of conferment of khatedari rights to Granthi u/S. 193 of the Act — Warrants no interference. (Paras 32, 35, 38 to 40)
Appeal dismissed.
jktLFkku dk'rdkjh vf/kfu;e] 1955] /kkjk 193 & vkoaVu vikLr djuk & Hkwfe ekQh xq:}kjk dh Fkh & fdlh ^^,l,l** us ;g nkok fd;k fd og bls ^^xzUFkh ekWQhnkj** dh gSfl;r ls /kkj.k dj jgk Fkk vr% og /kkjk 193 ds rgr [kkrsnkjh vf/kdkj iznku fd;s tkus dk gdnkj Fkk & mlus bl fookfnr Hkwfe dks iathd`r foØ; foys[k ds tfj;s izkFkhZ dks foØ; fd;k & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & iz'uxr Hkwfe vihykFkhZ }kjk ^^vius xzke lsok vuqnku** ds :i esa /kkj.k ugha dj jgk Fkk vis{kkd`r ;g xq:}kjk dh Hkwfe ds :i esa ntZ Fkh ,oa bls lEHkor;k izkFkhZ dks /kkjk 193 ds rgr vkoafVr ugha fd;k tk ldrk Fkk & bls vkoaVu dh fu;fer izfØ;k ds vU;Fkk ds vuqlkj mldks vkoafVr fd;k gqvk gksuk ugha n'kkZ;k x;k & tgka vuqPNsn 226 ds rgr gLr{ksi ls vf/kdkfjrk dh ifj.kfr nwljh vksj voS/kkfudrk ds izR;korZu dh ,slh fLFkfr esa gksrh gS rks gLr{ksi dh okaNuh;rk ls badkj fd;k tkuk pkfg;s & xq:}kjk dks ;k rks vkoafVr djus ls ;k xq:}kjk ds uke ntZ gksus ds dkj.k xq:}kjk ds uke dh Hkwfe ij vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 193 ds rgr xzUFkh dks [kkrsnkjh vf/kdkj iznku djus dh fo"k; oLrq ugha gks ldrh Fkh & gLr{ksi okaNuh; ughaA ¼in la[;k 32] 35] 38 ls 40½
vihy [kkfjt dhA
2. The facts of the case are, that the petitioner Mukhtiar filed the writ petition, alleging inter-alia that one Santa Singh was allotted lands in Kila No.6 to 10 measuring 5 bighas in Murabba No.36 Chak No.21 PS, which lands were mutated in the name of Santa Singh vide mutation dated 30.10.74. Copy of the passbook has been submitted as Annex.1. Santa Singh was recorded as Khatedar, who transferred the land in the name of the petitioner vide registered sale deed dated 1.5.73, copy whereof has been produced as Annex.2. The petitioner claims to be in cultivatory possession of the land since 1973 as Khatedar.
3. According to the petitioner, the Tehsildar Raisinghnagar submitted an application before the Collector Sriganganagar for setting aside the allotment dated 15.5.67 made in favour of Santa Singh, and consequent mutation and sale, copy of this application has been produced as Annex.3. The petitioner submitted reply on 11.9.1997, Annex.4, and Additional Collector vide order dated 28.8.98, Annex.5, made a reference to the Board of Revenue for setting aside the allotment, mutation and subsequent sale. The petitioner in para 7 has alleged, that this reference was in relation to lands, bearing Kila No. 21 to 25 of Chak No.21 PS of Murabba No.36, while the lands belonging to the petitioner, are comprised in Kila No.6 to 10. The petitioner has further alleged, that Board of Revenue set aside the allotment by accepting reference, without considering the question that the land allotted to Santa Singh was not the land of Gurudwara, referred to by the learned Member of the Board of Revenue in his order, i.e. Kila No.21 to 25. The lands belonging to petitioner and Santa Singh are in Kila No.6 to 10, and not in Kila No.21 to 25. Lands in Kila No.6 to 10 were never in the name of Gurudwara. Thus, the order was claimed to be without jurisdiction, void and perverse. This is produced as Annex.6. The petitioner then filed a review petition, bringing to the notice of the Board of Revenue, that the lands belonging to Gurudwara were in Kila No.21 to 25, whereas lands allotted to Santa Singh were in Kila No.6 to 10, which was not Gurudwara's land. Copy of review petition has been produced as Annex.7, and it is contended, that the Board of Revenue refused to consider the submissions made in the review application, and has dismissed the same on the ground, that points raised in the review petition are the same, which were argued at the time of decision of the reference, and therefore, the review application does not lie. Copy of this order has been produced as Annex.8. With giving these facts, the orders are challenged only on two grounds, first being, that the Board of Revenue specifically mentioned in the orders that the lands belonging to Gurudwara are situated in Kila No.21 to 25, but lands belonging to Santa Singh are situated in Kila No.6 to 10, thus, lands allotted to Santa Singh could not be said to be Gurudwara land, and the lands allotted to Santa Singh were recorded as Sivay Chak in the revenue record. Thus, the Board of Revenue had no jurisdiction to cancel the allotment made in favour of Santa Singh on 15.5.67, on the ground of the land being belonging to Gurudwara. The other ground given is, that the order passed by the Board of Revenue purports to deprive the petitioner from his property without authority of law, and offends Article 300A of the Constitution.
4. To put it tersely, the whole challenge to the orders of the Board of Revenue, was only on the ground, that the lands belonging to Gurudwara were c
