Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1395 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Raghuvir

2003-10-14

N.N.MATHUR, O.P.BISHNOI

body2003
JUDGMENT 1. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 23.1.1998 allowing the writ petition and setting aside the orders of the Board of Revenue and the Additional Collector (Vigilance), Sri Ganganagar. 2. Brief facts giving rise to the instant appeal are that ceiling proceedings in respect of land in Chak 4 EE in Tehsil, Padampur, District, Sri Ganganagar belonging to one Ramrakh commenced in Case No. 1471/71 by Sub Divisional Officer, Sri Karanpur. The proceedings were dropped by the order of the S.D.O., Sri Karanpur dated 6.9.1972. A notice dated 16.5.1979 under section 15(2) of the Act of 1973 was issued for reopening of the proceedings. The notice was responded by the legal representatives of Ramrakh. The proceedings were reopened by the order of the Dy. Secretary dated 17.6.1981. The Additional Collector, Sri Ganganagar obtained a fresh report from the Tehsildar. As per the report, in the year 1966 the family of the deceased Ramrakh consisted of himself, his two sons. The status of the two daughters was shown as married. The Board of Revenue having found number of infirmities with the certificate issued by the Tehsildar refused to rely on it. The applicant challenged the order of the Board of Revenue and the Additional Collector by filing a writ petition u/Arts. 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. It was argued before the learned Single Judge that the Board of Revenue misread the report of the Tehsildar inasmuch as the figure 1977 written in Devnagari Script, was erroneously read as 1966. The learned Single Judge accepted the contention and held that as on 1.4.1966 both the daughters of deceased Ramrakh were unmarried and as such they form the part of his family making the strength to 7. In view of the finding, the learned Single Judge set aside the order of the Board of Revenue and the order of the Additional Collector (Vigilance). Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge the State has preferred the instant appeal. 3. Appearing on behalf of the State, it is contended by Mr. Dinesh Maheshwari Advocate that learned Single Judge misread the report of the Tehsildar in considering the figure 1966 as 1977, It is also submitted that both the daughters of Ramrakh did not form part of the family of deceased Ramrakh as they were married in the year 1966. 4. Appearing on behalf of the State, it is contended by Mr. Dinesh Maheshwari Advocate that learned Single Judge misread the report of the Tehsildar in considering the figure 1966 as 1977, It is also submitted that both the daughters of Ramrakh did not form part of the family of deceased Ramrakh as they were married in the year 1966. 4. Hearing the learned counsel for the parties on the controversy, this Court by order dated 29.7.2003 while keeping the special appeal pending before this Court directed the Tehsildar, Padampur to submit a fresh report with respect to the family of deceased Ramrakh as in the year 1966. He was directed to hold an inquiry as to whether the daughters of deceased Ramrakh were married in the year 1966 or not. 5. Pursuant to the directions of this Court the Tehsildar (Revenue), Padampur has submitted the report dated 1.10.2003. As per the report the daughters of deceased Ramrakh namely Smt. Bhagwanti, Smt. Rameshwari and Smt. Omi were married as on 1.4.1966. Mst. Bhagwanti married to Phularam so as Rameshwari with Hansla prior to 1961. Both were married in one family in Village Chak 24 B.B. Their names appeared in the Voter List of 1961 as wives of Phularam and Hansla respectively. The said family has shifted to Jutawali Tehsil Dabwali, District, Sirsa, State of Haryana. The third daughter Omi was married in the year 1966. In view of the report of the Tehsildar the contention of the learned counsel for the State deserves to be at accepted. The learned Single Judge has committed error in misreading figure 1966 as 1977. The Additional Collector (Vigilance) rightly held that in the year 1966 the family of deceased Ramrakh consisted of 4 persons. The finding has been rightly confirmed by the Board of Revenue. The learned Single Judge has erroneously interfered with the decision of the Board of Revenue. 6. Consequently, the special appeal is allowed. The judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 23.1.1998 is set aside. The order of the Board of Revenue and that of the Additional Collector (Vigilance), Sri Ganganagar is restored. *******