Adoption status is a legal matter resolvable only by civil courts, while revenue entries alone do not confer property rights.

Order

15/07/2025

1. The instant writ petitions have been preferred against the impugned order dated 18.06.2024 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bassi (SDO) by which the appeal preferred by the respondents under Section 75 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act , 1956 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1956”) has been allowed and the mutation entries made in favour of the petitioner dated 30.10.1976 have been quashed and set-aside and the matter has been remanded for holding fresh enquiry with regard to succession/successor of the deceased khatedar Ram Niwas in the revenue record.

2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner submitted an appeal under Section 76 of the Act of 1956 before the Divisional Commissioner, however, the same was rejected vide order dated 16.07.2024. Thereafter, a revision petition was submitted before the Board of Revenue (hereinafter referred to as “the Board”), however, the same was also rejected vide order dated 10.06.2025. 3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was adopted by the Khatedar Ram Niwas prior to year 1960 and Ram Niwas expired in the year 1960. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the name of adoptive father of the petitioner was recorded in all public records, i.e., Ration Card, Voter Card etc. as the petitioner is adopted son of Ram Niwas. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner submitted an application before the Gram Panchayat for getting patta of a land wherein the status of the petitioner was mentioned as adopted son of Ram Niwas and the Panchayat issued a Patta by treating the petitioner as adopted son of Ram Niwas in the year 1964. Learned Senior Counsel submits that mutation of the land belonging to adoptive father of the petitioner was entered in his name vide Mutation Entry No.234 by Gram Panchayat, Tunga vide order dated 30.10.1976.

4. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the respondent is daughter of Ram Niwas and she was acquainted with all the above facts but she filed a time barred appeal before the Court of SDO along-with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1963) wherein address of the petitioner was mentioned as resident of village Madhogarh, Tehsil Bassi, District Jaipur at present resident of Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the petitioner was never served with the notice and the application submitted by the respondent under Section 5 of the Act of 1963 was allowed in one line, without assigning any justified and cogent reason and the appeal preferred by the respondent was allowed vide impugned order dated 18.06.2024 by which the aforesaid mutation has been cancelled and the matter has been remanded for holding an enquiry about the successors of the deceased Khatedar Ram Niwas. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the factum of adoption of the petitioner by the deceased Khatedar Ram Niwas cannot be adjudicated by the Tehsildar as the mutation proceedings are fiscal entries in the revenue record and it is only the competent Civil Court, who has the jurisdiction in this regard. Learned Senior Counsel submits that during pendency of the aforesaid appeal before SDO, the respondent submitted a suit for declaration, correction of entries and injunction against the petitioner before the Court of Additional Collector, however, the same was dismissed in default on 26.09.2024 and thereafter no application for restoration of the aforesaid suit was filed by the petitioner. Hence, the order dated