SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT PRINCIPAL SEAT JODHPUR
MOTA RAM – Appellant
Versus
STATE AND ORS – Respondent
CW 3474/2002



Advocates:
['JL PUROHIT', '', 'RAJEEV PUROHIT', 'NS ACHARYA', 'N R BUDANIA', 'AK KHATRI', '', 'CR CHOUDHARY', 'L K PUROHIT']

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3474/2002

Mota Ram through LRs

----Petitioner

Versus

State of Rajasthan & Ors.

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. J.L. Purohit, Senior Advocate

assisted by

Mr. N.R. Budania – on VC

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. L.K. Purohit

Mr. C.R. Choudhary – on VC

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Judgment

06/01/2022

1.

In wake of instant surge in COVID-19 cases and spread of its

highly infectious Omicron variant, lawyers have been advised to

refrain from coming to the Courts.

2.

This writ petition has been preferred claiming the following

reliefs:

“In view of the aforementioned facts and grounds, it

is humbly prayed that this writ petition may kindly be

allowed. An appropriate writ direction or order in the

nature of certiorari may kindly be issued and the

judgment of the Board of Revenue dated 03.06.2002

(Annex.5) may kindly be quashed.”

3.

Mr. J.L. Purohit, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. N.R.

Budania, appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the

petitioner being an agriculturist, claimed to be in possession of the

(2 of 11)

[CW-3474/2002]

land in question, at Khasra No.69 admeasuring 100 bighas in

Village Tidiyasar, Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh, for a period

of about 100 years. Learned Senior Counsel also submits that the

petitioner claimed to be an allottee of the land since when the

Bikaner Tenancy Act, 1945 came into force.

4.

Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further submits

that the petitioner acquired the right of cultivation and continued

to cultivate the said land in question, under Section 24 of the

Bikaner Act, and that the petitioner was recorded as the tenant of

the lands in Khatoni of Samvat Years 2011 to 2014.

5.

Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner also submits that

the petitioner was conferred khatedari rights by a deeming

provision, under Section 15AAA (2-A) by the Rajasthan State

Legislature vide amendment in November, 1992 to the Rajasthan

Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 1955’).

6.

Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further submits

that the petitioner’s name from the Khatoni, with respect to the

said land in question, was removed and the same land in question

was declared as ‘gochar’ land.

7.

Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner also submits that

the petitioner then filed a suit for declaration as khatedar under

Section 88 of the Act of 1955, but the Sub Divisional Officer

(Revenue), Nohar (henceforth referred to as ‘Trial Court’)

dismissed the said suit vide its judgment dated 30.03.1992 finding

the land to be ‘gochar land’.

Section 88 of the Act of 1955 reads as follows-

“88. Suits for declaration of right.— (1) Any person

claiming to be a tenant or a co-tenant may sue for a

(3 of 11)

[CW-3474/2002]

declaration that he is a tenant or for a declaration of

his share in such joint tenancy.

(2) A tenant of Khudkasht may sue for a declaration

that he is such a tenant.

(3) A sub-tenant may sue the person from whom he

holds for declaration that he is a sub-tenant.

(4) A landholder other than a State Government may

sue a person claiming to be a tenant or co-tenant of a

holding or a tenant of Khudkasht or a sub-tenant for a

declaration of the right of such person.”

8.

Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further submits

that the petitioner preferred an appeal against the aforementioned

judgment passed by the Trial Court before the Revenue Appellate

Authority, Hanumangarh.

9.

Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner also submits that

the Revenue Appellate Authority, vide its judgment dated

05.06.1995, ruled in favour the petitioner, while relying upon the

statements of the defendants in their written statements to the

effect that the Khasra No. 69 was old Khasra and that two new

khasras were carved out from the same land, being khasra no.

147 admeasuring 14 bighas and kh

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top