Ownership rights of land, once established by revenue courts, are upheld, but may be subject to undertakings not to disturb existing public utilities and residential settlements created in good faith over time.

Order

14/02/2024

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 19.07.2017 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner as well as the order dated 19.03.2020 passed by the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer.

3. Briefly noted the facts of the case are that the petitioner was having a khatedari land at Village Gajpura, Tehsil Taranagar, District Churu. This Khatedari land was wrongly entered as Sivaychak in Khasra Girdavri of Samwat-2019 on the basis of an order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Rajgarh in the year 1979. In these circumstances, the respondents filed a suit before the Assistant Collector, Taranagar but the same was dismissed vide order dated 15.12.2016. Against the order dated 15.12.2016, the respondents filed an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner. The Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner, vide its judgment dated 19.06.2017 allowed the appeal of the respondents, against which, the petitioner-State preferred a revision petition before the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer. The Board of Revenue, vide its judgment dated 19.03.2020, dismissed the revision petition filed by the State. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed.

4. Learned State Counsel submits that during the pendency of the entire litigation, a huge chunk (approx. 20 Bighas) of land has been inhabited by the residents of Village Rajpura. It is also informed that number of buildings have been constructed which are of public utility. Learned counsel submits that the residents of Village Rajpura have constructed their houses and besides that, there is a public well also, which is being used by the residents for bringing water.

5. Learned State Counsel further submits that the findings recorded by the Revenue Appellate Authority and the Revisional Court, being just, proper and correct, though cannot be interfered with, however, in the changed circumstances, if the respondents file an Additional Affidavit and give an undertaking before this Court that the land where the residential buildings and public amenities have been constructed will not be disturbed by them, then the respondents may be permitted to have the possession and ownership of the rest of the land in pursuance of the orders passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority and the Board of Revenue.

6. On instructions, the learned counsel for the respondents has filed an Additional Affidavit on behalf of the respondents under the signatures of one Shri Vishal Singh, who has stated in the Additional Affidavit that the respondents herein are ready to give up their claim for the aforementioned lands recorded as Abadi and common well within the land in question and other than the land which was wrongly recorded as Sivaychak.

7. The Additional Affidavit is taken on record.

8. In these circumstances, learned counsel for the respondents submits that except the land which is being utilized for the public utility and residential purposes of Village Rajpura, the rest of the land may be mutated in the name of the respondents in pursuance of the directions issued by the Revenue Appellate Authority and affirmed by the Board of Revenue.

9. Learned State Counsel is not in a position to point out any infirmity in the orders passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority and the Board of Revenue but he submits that the undertaking given by the respondents should be adhered to and the inhabitants of the Village Rajpura shall not be disturbed by the respondents in view of the order passed by this Court.

10. I have considered the submissio