Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1537 (RAJ)

Mahendra Singh v. Board of Revenue

2006-05-08

K.S.RATHORE

body2006
Judgment K.S. Rathore, J.-The respondent bank granted loan of Rs. 3000/-to Gokul after mortgaging the land measuring 54.12 Bigha. At the time of mortgage in the revenue record, the name of Gokul was recorded as Khatedar. The petitioners purchased the certain part of the said land through registered sale deed on 13.07.1970 after paying consideration of Rs. 10,000/-and possession of the land in dispute was handed over to the petitioner. In the revenue record, name of the petitioners was also recorded. 2. It is averred on behalf of the petitioners that Gokul did not disclose the fact that the land in dispute has been mortgaged with the bank against the loan of Rs. 3,000/-. On 28.05.1976, the respondent bank auctioned the land bearing Khasra No. 955/1.17 and 956/11. The possession of the said land was also taken by the bank and name of the bank was entered in the revenue record. The case of the petitioners is that other land belonging to Gokul has not been auctioned while Gokul has mortgaged the land belonging to various Khasras including Khasras in question. 3. A suit was filed by the petitioner for permanent injunction against the respondent bank and Gokul, Ranjeet, which was decreed vide Judgment dated 21.06.1982 in favour of the petitioners and the respondents were restrained from selling, mortgaging and transferring the land in dispute. It is submitted that this order has not been challenged by the opposite party. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a suit for declaration and rectification in the entries of revenue record against the bank on 20.07.1983, but the same was dismissed by the trial Court on 111.1987. The Judgment dated 111.1987 was challenged by the petitioners before the Revenue Appellate Authority. The appeal of the petitioners was allowed by the Appellate Authority vide Judgment dated 28.04.1992. The Judgment dated 28.04.1992 was challenged by the bank before the Board of Revenue, which came to be allowed vide Judgment dated 212.1995. The Board of Revenue upheld the Judgment passed by the trial Court and set aside the Judgment dated 28.04.1992 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, therefore, the present writ petition is preferred by the petitioners. 4. Heard rival submissions of the respective parties and perused the impugned orders. 5. It is not disputed that at the time of mortgage, Gokul was the sole owner of the land being recorded Khatedar. 4. Heard rival submissions of the respective parties and perused the impugned orders. 5. It is not disputed that at the time of mortgage, Gokul was the sole owner of the land being recorded Khatedar. It is also not disputed that Gokul was well aware of the fact that the land in question is mortgaged with the bank and the petitioners have purchased the same. It is categorically stated that the bank is having possession over the disputed land. The land which was auctioned was recorded in the name of bank in the revenue record and the Revenue Appellate Authority while allowing the appeal of the petitioner has not care to observe properly that the petitioner is not a bonafide purchaser and the land is mortgaged in favour of the bank. Thus, in my considered view, the Judgment passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority is not only contrary to the record, but also contrary to the provisions of law. The Board of Revenue has rightly quashed and set aside the Judgment passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority and upheld the Judgment passed by the trial Court. 6. I do not find any error or illegality in the Judgment passed by the Board of Revenue. The petitioners are not able to make out any case for interference by this Court at this stage as the present matter involve several disputed questions of fact whether the petitioners are in possession of the land whereas the possession of the bank is well established. 7. Consequently, writ petition fails and herewith dismissed with no order as to costs.