Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1279 (RAJ)

Ghanshyam Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2005-04-29

B.PRASAD, DINESH MAHESHWARI

body2005
Honble PRASAD, J.–Present special appeal has been filed by the appellants being aggrieved by the order of a learned Single Judge dated 16.08.2000, Assailing the order, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that it was not right for the learned Single Judge to have dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the questions which were raised in the writ petition, were not liable to be interfered in supervisory jurisdiction. The learned Single Judge should have examined the merits of the case in detail. The learned counsel urged orally as well as in the written submissions made before this Court that there was a jagir village Goojari Ki Bhagal of which a patta was executed by the orders of the Jagirdar Chaman Singh in Samvat 2005. Chaman Singh died in 2009. The learned counsel submitted that the disputed land was part of the jagir land. The land was granted by the Jagirdar in favour of Manohar Singh. The officers of the Land Revenue Court namely Sub-Divisional Office, Revenue Appellate Authority and Board of Revenue without having considered that the patta granted, should not have been held improper without there being any question raised. The question of genuineness of patta could be gone into be an appropriate Civil Court. According to the learned counsel for the appellants Exhibit A/1 patta was a genuine documents by virtue of which the land was allotted by Chaman Singh to the plaintiff. It was also claimed that the land was covered by Sec. 23(1)(d) of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the `Jagir Act) and after commencement of this Act, the land got vested into the Jagirdar. In any case, the question was to be decided by the Jagir Commissioner. The appellants being in continuous possession, were required to be declared as Khatedars. (2). The learned Government Advocate, per contra, submitted that admittedly the land was not entered in the name of the Jagirdar. The land was entered in the revenue record as bilanam Sarkar. When the Jagir Act came into operation, it was the requirement of law that the land recorded as Khudkast, will get vested into khatedar. In the instant case, the land having not been mutated, nothing could have been recorded in the light of the Act as Khudkast and the khatedari could not have claimed. When the Jagir Act came into operation, it was the requirement of law that the land recorded as Khudkast, will get vested into khatedar. In the instant case, the land having not been mutated, nothing could have been recorded in the light of the Act as Khudkast and the khatedari could not have claimed. The Board of Revenue has also recorded that the so called document is not a patta at all. This was only a tahrir yaddast. Had there been any patta the appellant petitioners would have got the land mutated in their names but for the first time in the suit, the patta has been produced. the revenue record exhibits that the land was never entered in the revenue record as khudkast. Unless the land was recorded as khudkast, the Jagir Act will in no way give any right to the appellants. The learned Government Advocate further submitted that the land belongs to talab and its part. Such lands are not liable to be allotted at all and no khatedari can be given under the jagir Act. Thus, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. (3). We have given our thoughtful consideration be to the rival submissions and have perused the record. (4). Admittedly the land was recorded as bilanam Sarkar and the land which is recorded as bilanam Sarkar cannot be considered to be the Khudkast land of the khatedari. Unless the land is a part of cultivation of khudkast, the Jagir Act gives no right to the Jagiradar to get the land converted to his advantageous khatedari land. The documents which is the basis of the suit, was never produced by the plaintiff appellants before the appropriate authorities nor entered in the revenue record and only for the first time in the suit, such plea was taken. The plea thus being not tenable in terms of the Jagir Act, the suit was not cognizable by the Revenue Courts and it was admitted by the appellants that the matter is pending before the Jagir Commissioner. Any dispute in relation to Jagir land would only be cognizable by the Jagir Commissioner and, therefore, the suit even on any court also was not valid in the eye of law. Further it is submitted that land is a part of talab and pal. This is not liable to be allotted or assigned to any person unless an amendment or change. Further it is submitted that land is a part of talab and pal. This is not liable to be allotted or assigned to any person unless an amendment or change. It is not the case of the appellants that any amendment or change has been made and in that light, nothing can be said to be given to the appellants and, therefore, even if the learned Single Judge has not dealt with the case as has been perused by the learned counsel, there is no merit in the case. The findings given by the learned Single Judge are not liable to be interfered with in the light of the observations made by us hereinabove. (5). There is no force in this appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.