Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 9037

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, ACJ, Sangeeta Sharma, J
Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Board Of Revenue – Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1925/2008|S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2035/2008|D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.1926/2008|S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2036/2008

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Bharat Vyas, Niti Jain Bhandari, Virendra Lodha, Ankit Rathore
For the Respondents: Gurucharan Singh Gill, Shikha Sharma, Kamlakar Sharma, Alankrita Sharma, A.K. Bhandari, Atul Bhardwaj, Vikas Saini

Land acquisition, under the relevant Act, is confined to the specific area demarcated in notification and award. Excess area within the same revenue parcel remains with the original owner. Revenue record correction powers are strictly limited to clerical errors and cannot be used for substantive re-measurement or title adjudication.

Headnote:(A) Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 - Sections 88 and 89 - Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 - Section 136 - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 4(1) and 6 - Determination of land area and ownership post-acquisition - Dispute regarding land area measurement - Scope of correction powers under revenue statutes. (Paras 3, 8, 41, 56)

(B) Land Acquisition - Vesting of land - Notification under Section 4 and subsequent award define the quantum of land acquired - Any area found in excess of notified measurements cannot be deemed to have been acquired and continues to remain with the original title holders. (Paras 36, 56, 57, 59)

(C) Revenue Records - Correction proceedings - Section 136 of the Land Revenue Act is limited to clerical or arithmetical corrections - It does not empower authorities to re-measure land, re-adjudicate title, or alter the identity of land parcels post-acquisition. (Paras 41)

(D) Parties to Litigation - Necessity of impleadment - An entity acting as an agent for the state in land distribution does not acquire independent ownership and is not a necessary party to a suit concerning the original title if the state is party. (Paras 60, 62)

Facts of the case:
Plaintiffs sought a declaration for the correction of land records, claiming that the actual area of the land was larger than what was recorded in settlement operations. The state admitted this claim in earlier proceedings. Subsequently, parts of the land were acquired for industrial development. The corporation to which the land was transferred challenged the various orders of revenue authorities granting the plaintiffs' claims, arguing that the entire land parcel vested in them upon acquisition and that the revenue courts lacked jurisdiction to alter measurements after the acquisition process was finalized.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the acquisition notification and the subsequent award specifically demarcated the area to be acquired. Any portion of the land not included within those specified measurements remains outside the scope of acquisition and continues to vest in the original owners. The corporation acts merely as an agent for the state and cannot claim better title than the state itself.

Issues: Whether the entirety of a revenue-numbered land parcel vests in the acquiring body even if the actual physical area exceeds the area mentioned in the acquisition notifications, and whether revenue authorities possess the jurisdiction to re-measure land area under correction provisions after acquisition.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that acquisition is limited to the specific area notified and awarded. A discrepancy in the measured area compared to the recorded area does not result in the automatic acquisition of the excess land. Furthermore, statutory provisions for record correction cannot be invoked to perform de facto re-settlement or title adjudication once the land has been acquired.

Result: Appeals dismissed.

Table of Content
1. litigation history regarding revenue records and title declaration. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
2. procedural history of injunction suits and revenue record corrections. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30)
3. land acquisition, vesting, and the extent of acquired land area. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26)
4. appellant (riico) arguments regarding acquisition scope and jurisdictional limits. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47)
5. respondents' arguments on the finality of earlier revenue outcomes. (Para 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53)
6. scope of land acquisition restricted to notified quantities; riico's limited agency. (Para 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67)

Judgment

Date of conclusion of arguments : 11/02/2026

Date on which judgment was reserved : 11/02/2026

Whether the full judgment or only the operative part is pronounced : Full judgment

Date of pronouncement : 28/03/2026

(Per Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice)

1. The present two special appeals challenge the judgment dated 29.09.2008 whereby, the two writ petitions filed by the RIICO were dismissed by the learned Single Judge and the orders passed by the Board of Revenue and the subordinate Revenue Authorities were upheld.

2. We notice that though the subject matter of both the writ petitions was different, but the learned Single Judge took up both the writ petitions filed by the RIICO on the ground that the land in question and parties to the proceedings were similar.

Brief Facts:

3. A Revenue Suit No.252/1985 was filed by the plaintiffs respondents Kanhaiyalal, Hazarilal and Smt. Meera Devi under Sections 88, 89 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (henceforth to be referred as "the Act") before the Assistant Collector and Magistrate (hereinafter referred as "ACM") seeking declaration that the total area of land bearing khasra Nos. 203 and 204 be corrected as 22 bigha and 8 biswa which was wrongly entered as 19 bigha and 4 biswa in the settlement operations which had taken place in Samvat 2015, corresponding Year 1958, and to record the name of the plaintiffs as khatedar-tenants after the settlement proceedings. The plaintiffs thus, claimed that they should be recorded as khatedar tenants for 3 bigha and 4 biswa of Khasra Nos.203 and 204, while for the remaining land RIICO may be shown as khatedars. In support of their case, the plaintiffs placed on record a copy of 'Jamabandi', 'Khasra Girdawari', 'Purcha Settlement', 'Settlement Slip', Receipt Lagaan and 'Statement of Patwari Halka Durga' dated 15.04.1958.

4. The State Government filed its written statement through Tehsildar on 3/7.02.1986 and admitted that the total area of the land of Khasra Nos.203 and 204 was 22 bigha and 8 biswa.

5. After framing issues and examining the witnesses on behalf of the plaintiffs, as no evidence was led on behalf of the defendants, who admitted the facts, the concerned ACM dismissed the suit on 21.06.1986. The concerned ACM was a trainee at that time.

6. The appeal, therefore, was preferred by the plaintiffs against the judgment dated 21.06.1986. The Revenue Appellate Authority (RAA) set aside the order passed by the ACM dated 21.06.1986, vide its judgment dated 02.08.1986 and declared that the plaintiffs are khatedar tenants of the land bearing khasra Nos.203 and 204. The area of khasra Nos.203 and 204 was held to be 22 bigha and 8 biswa and plaintiffs No.1 and 2 were held to be equal share-holders. Out of the said land, the RAA declared that the plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 would hold the land 19 bigha and 4 biswa as equal shareholders while for remaining land, the plaintiffs No.1 and 2 will have equal in half share and the plaintiff No.3 Mst. Meera Devi would have half share.

7. Second appeal was preferred by the State Government challenging the order dated 02.08.1986 of RAA, which was dismissed by the Board of Revenue on 14.12.1993.

8. It is sub

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 9037

Cases Referred (5)