(1 of 4)

[CW-3096/2011]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3096/2011

State Of Raj.

----Petitioner

Versus

Bhagwan Das And Anr

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. RD Bhadu, Dy. GC.

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. J.L. Purohit, Sr. Adv. assisted by

Mr. Shashank Joshi.

Mr. Moti Singh.

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Order

27/01/2023

The petitioner-State has challenged the consecutive order of

Revenue Authorities on the ground that the type of land was ‘Lata’

which is not open to allotment and, thus, the Government was

free to make appropriate entries.

Learned Counsel for petitioner-State submits that the

allotments are of 1964 and at that juncture, the type of land was

B-II, but subsequently, the land was earmarked for ‘Lata’ in the

second settlement, which has happened in 1986 in District Jalore.

Learned counsel for the petitioner-State further submits that

the type of land does not entitle the respondents to hold the

allotment, however, he was unable to satisfy this Court as to in

what circumstance, a prospective act of the State, which is the

second settlement in 1986 would dis-entitle the respondent No.1

from his allotment, which was going on since 1964.

(2 of 4)

[CW-3096/2011]

Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 fairly submits that

it is a settled law that the settlement of department and no

authority to alter the existing entries in the revenue records on its

own and could have done only after taking due process of law for

cancellation of the allotment.

Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has referred to the

judgment rendered by Jaipur Bench of this Hon’ble Court in the

matter of Harkishan Vs. Lallu (In S.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.19476/2018) decided on 02.03.2021, the relevant portion of

which reads as under:-

“Admittedly, the land in question was entered in

Khatedari of Partiya and Ram Sahay, the predecessor-in-

interest of the parties, in equal share. It is also

undisputed between the parties that the settlement

department altered the existing entries without any order

of the competent authority/Court. It is trite that the

settlement department has no authority to alter the

entries existing in the revenue record on its own. This

Court has, in case of Geega Ram (supra), held as under:-

“The respondents have not been able to

show as to what right the settlement had to

change the existing entries in the revenue

records. The Board as also the RAA has noted

the fact that khasra no.734 was entered in the

khatedari of the petitioners. The Settlement was

therefore bound to reflect the same position with

regard to the records of rights which existed at

the material time. It could neither delete the

name of any khatedar nor could it change any

such entry. The consent which according to the

respondents was given by the petitioners to the

settlement could not afford any basis to the

settlement for making changes in the records of

rights particularly when they also admitted

possession of the respondent no.4/his father in

the disputed land. The petitioners have alleged

that the so called consent was false and

fabricated. The RAA and the Board could not

(3 of 4)

[CW-3096/2011]

have therefore attached any sanctity to such

consent. If at all the respondent no.4 wanted to

get his title on the basis of possession, if at all

there was one or the admission made by the

petitioners, the only mode available to him was

to file his independent revenue suit to get his

title/rights declared.””

Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has further referred

to the judgment rendered by Jaipur Bench of this Hon’ble Court in

the matter of Geega Ram & Anr. Vs. The Board of Revenue &

Ors. (In S.B. Civl Writ Petition No.2947/2002) decided on

23.07.2007, the relevant portion of which reads as under:-

“The respondents have not been able to show as to what

right th