Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL, J
Pyarelal S/o Ghisiya – Appellant
Versus
Sumer Singh S/o Swaroop Singh – Respondent
Judgment :
1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 26.07.2024 passed by the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer (for brevity “the BoR”) whereby, while allowing the revision petition preferred by the respondents No.1 and 2, the order dated 09.03.2022 passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Bharatpur (for short “the Commissioner”) allowing an application filed by the petitioner and the proforma respondents No.16 to 20 under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, has been set aside.
2. The relevant facts in brief are that the State of Rajasthan filed an application under Section 136 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1956”) against the respondents No.1 to 13 in the Court of Sub-Divisional Officer, Karauli (for brevity “the SDO”) which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 01.10.2021. It was assailed by the State by way of an appeal in the Court of Additional Divisional Commissioner, Bharatpur wherein, the petitioner and the proforma respondents No.16 to 20 filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC read with Section 151 CPC seeking their impleadment as party respondents on the ground that the subject land comprises of “Charag
The court upheld the Board of Revenue's decision that the petitioner was neither a necessary nor a proper party to the proceedings, affirming the dismissal of his application.
The proceedings under Section 136 of the Act of 1956 are summary in nature and cannot be treated as a suit, thus the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is not maintainable.
Clerical errors in land revenue records can be corrected to reflect true ownership, and such corrections should not be interfered with if substantiated.
Sections 151 and 152 CPC are limited to clerical corrections and do not allow for substantive reviews of prior judgments.
The court emphasized the limited power of Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the authority of the Sub Divisional Officer to rectify mistakes in land records.
The Board of Revenue exceeded its jurisdiction by entertaining a revision against a non-meritorious permit to withdraw, as the underlying assistant collector's order remained unchallenged.
The mutation in land revenue cannot be cancelled without addressing and potentially invalidating prior orders, ensuring procedural integrity.
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
