IMPORTANT POINT
Mutation entries in revenue record are only for a fiscal purpose and do not create any title/ownership right in favour of person in whose name mutation entry has been made.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:—

“It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this instant writ petition, may kindly be allowed and the impugned judgment and decree dated 17.08.2022 passed by the learned Board of Revenue, at Annexure 6, and the judgment and decree dated 19.10.2011 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Officer, at Annexure -4, may kindly be quashed and set-aside, and the suit filed by the plaintiffs/ petitioners may kindly be allowed, in the interest of justice.

Any other order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court deems it just, fit and proper to pass in the present set of facts and circumstances, may kindly be passed in the favour of petitioners.”

2. As per the pleaded facts, one Shri Madhulal (father of the petitioners-plaintiffs) had ownership, khatedari and possession of six khasras bearing nos.947, 948, 1024, 1025/1, 1028/1 and 1030 measuring 2.72 hectares in total, and after the death of their father, the petitioners-plaintiffs approached the concerned revenue authority for entering their names in the revenue records, on the basis of intestate succession; however, the officer concerned refused to entertain the application pertaining to such request.

2.1 Subsequently, the petitioners-plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of khatedari under Sections 88 & 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 1955’) and permanent injunction against the respondents-defendants before the learned Sub Divisional Officer (SDO), Chittorgarh; the same was opposed by respondent no.2 (alleged step-brother of petitioners-plaintiffs) and his mother (Smt. Magni) claiming themselves to be the sole legal heirs of Late Shri Madhulal; no Natha marriage ever took place between the mother of petitioners-plaintiffs (Smt. Dhapu) and Shri Madhulal, and moreover, Khasra nos.1024, 1025, 1028/1 and 1030 were sold by Late Shri Madhulal during his lifetime, and Khasra nos.947 and 948 were purchased by the respondent no.1.

2.2 Thereafter, the learned SDO vide the impugned judgment and decree dated 19.10.2011 dismissed the suit, and while deciding issue no.5 on the application of respondent no.1, held that the power to decide the matter pertaining to legal heirs vests with the civil courts and not with the revenue courts.

2.2.1. The said issue no.5 reads as under:—

“(Matter in Other Language)”

2.3. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree of the learned SDO, an appeal was preferred by the petitioners-plaintiffs before the learned Revenue Appellate Authority (RAA) and vide the judgment and decree dated 05.07.2012, the learned RAA set aside the judgment & decre passed by the learned SDO, while holding the petitioners-plaintiffs as Khatedar of khasra nos. 947 and 948; it was further held that the aforementioned issue no.5 was a mixed question of facts and law and the averments of respondent no.2 and his mother based on an unregistered Will were not maintainable.

2.4 In consequence, respondent no.1 preferred a second appeal under Section 224 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act before the learned Board of Revenue (BoR) for Rajasthan, Ajmer wherein vide the impugned judgment and decree dated 17.08.2022, the judgment and decree passed by the RAA was set aside and the judgment passed by learned S.D.O. was upheld. Hence, the present petition has been preferred claiming the afore-quoted reliefs.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners-plaintiffs submitted that as per community customs, Natha marriage took place between Smt. Dhapu and Shri Madhulal and the petitioners-plaintiffs were born out of the said wedlock; however later on, relationship was established between their father and Smt. Magni and respondent no. 2 was born; thus both the petitioners-plaintiffs and respondent no. 2 are legal heirs of the Late Shri Madhulal, and thus, the name of petitioners-plaintiffs ought to be recorded in the revenue records for the af