Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1891 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Mohan Ram

2006-05-25

M.S.KHAN

body2006
[kku] lnL;—;g jsQjsUl vfr- ftyk dysDVj MhMokuk }kjk vius vknsk fnukad 8-3-2001 ds }kjk jktLo e.My vtesj dks ÁLrqr fd;k x;k gSA 2- la{ksi esa Ádj.k ds rF; bl Ádkj gS fd rglhynkj MhMokuk us v/khuLFk U;k;ky; esa ÁkFkZuk i= ÁLrqr dj fuosnu fd;k fd xzke yw.kksnj ds [kljk uEcj xr 97] 109 ftlds gky [kljk uEcj 115] 130 gS] mä Hkwfe lEor~ 2010 ls 2020 esa ckykth egkjkt okds nsg ykykljh FkkA mä Hkwfe dk vÁkFkhZ us lsfVyes.V foHkkx ls ijpk yxku ÁkIr dj fy;kA mä ifjorZu xSj dkuwuh vkSj vf/kdkj {ks= ds ckgj gqvk rFk le; le; ij Hkwfe/kkjh dks bldh tkudkjh ugha nh xbZ tks fujLr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA vr% mä gLrkUrj.k dks fujLr fd;k tkosA v/khuLFk U;k;ky; us mHk; i{k dks lqudj fooknxzLr vkjkth iqu% efUnj ds uke ntZ djus gsrq ;g jsQjsUl e.My dks Ásf"kr fd;k gSA 3- ÁkFkhZ jkT; ljdkj dh vksj ls mi jktdh; vfHkHkk"kd dh cgl lquh xbZA vÁkFkhZ ckotwn lwpuk vuqifLFkr jgus ds dkj.k muds fo:) ,d i{kh; dk;Zokgh ds vknsk fn;s x;sA 4- ÁkFkhZ jkT; ljdkj dh vksj ls mi jktdh; vfHkHkk"kd us viuh cgl esa crk;k fd fooknxzLr Hkwfe ewfrZ efUnj ,oa lkoZtfud mi;ksx dh Hkwfe gSA vr% mUgksaus bl Hkwfe dks iqu% efUnj ds uke ntZ djus dh ÁkFkZuk dhA vius i{k ds leFkZu esa vkj-vkj-Mh- 1994 ist 1 ,oa ttesaV VwMs ekpZ 2004 ,l-lh- ikVZ 1 esa Ádkfkr fu.kZ; i`Foh yky cuke~ cksMZ vkWQ jsosU;w ,.M vnlZ dh uthjsa isk dhA blds vfrfjä xSj dkuwuh vknsk dks dHkh Hkh fujLr fd;k tk ldrk gSA bl lEcU/k esa mUgksaus vkj-vkj-Mh- 1993 ist 411 ,oa vkj-vkj-Mh- 2002 ist 1 dh uthjsa isk dhA 5- geus mHk; i{k ds fo}ku vfHkHkk"kdx.k dh cgl ij euu fd;k ,oa i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;kA 6- vfrfjä ftyk dysDVj us vius jsQjsUl fu.kZ; esa ;g fu"d"kZ fudkyk gS fd xr [kljk uEcj 97] 109 ds gky [kljk uEcj 115] 130 gS exj jdcs esa dksbZ vUrj ugha gSA xr [kljk uEcj 97] 109 lEor~ 2010 ls lEor~ 2013 lEor~ 2006 esa Mksyh cuke~ efUnj Jh ckykth okds ykykljh ntZ Fks tks fd ukekUrjdj.k la[;k 45 ds tfj;s eksgu jke vkRet gqDekjke ds uke ntZ gq, gSA lsfVyes.V ds vf/kdkfj;ksa@ deZpkfj;ksa us tks ifjorZu fd;k gS og xyr gSA fooknxzLr Hkwfe nsork dh lEifÙk gS] nsoewfrZ lnso vo;Ld jgrh gS bl dkj.k mldh Hkwfe ij fdlh dks LokfeRo vf/kdkj ÁkIr ugha gksrk gSA pwafd efUnj ,d LFkkbZ ukckfyx gksrk gS tks fd VªLVh ds laj{k.k esa jgrk gSA efUnj eB dh Hkwfe ij dksbZ Hkh O;fä Hkw ÁcU/k foHkkx ls ijpk ÁkIr ugha dj ldrk vFkok gLrkUrj.k Hkh ugha dj ldrkA vxj ,slk —R; dksbZ djrk gS rks og dkuwuh n`f"V ls voS/k ,oa ÁHkkokwU; gSA ge vfrfjä ftyk dysDVj }kjk fudkys x;s fu"d"kksZ ls viuh lgefr O;ä djrs gS D;ksafd ewfrZ efUnj lrr~ vo;Ld gS ftldh Hkwfe dk gLrkUrj.k /kkjk 46 jktLFkku dkrdkjh vf/kfu;e ds Áko/kkuksa ds foijhr gSA tSlk fd vkj-vkj-Mh- 1994 ist 1 esa ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; us fu.kZ; ikfjr fd;k gSA jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; ds mä fu.kZ; dks ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us ttesaV VwMs ekpZ 2004 ,l-lh- ikVZ 1 esa Ádkfkr fu.kZ; i`Foh yky cuke~ cksMZ vkWQ jsosU;w ,.M vnlZ ds dsl esa vigsYM fd;k gSA ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; fuEu Ádkj ls gS& Having heard learned counsel of the parties on either side, we are satisfied that the common impugned order which is under challenge in these appeals, does not call for interference at the hands of this Court. The High Court has elaborately considered the respective contentions looking to the facts and also the record as well as the position of law. In the view, it is unnecessary to us to support them again at we agree with the conclusions recorded by the High Court. vfHkHkk"kd vÁkFkhZ }kjk ÁLrqr uthjsa bl Ádj.k ds foks"k rF;ksa ds ifjÁs{; esa pLik ugha gksrh gSA tgka rd jsQjsUl vÁR;kfkr foyEc ls ÁLrqr fd;s tkus dk Áu gS] xSj dkuwuh vknsk dks dHkh Hkh fujLr fd;k tk ldrk gSA bl lEcU/k esa vkj-vkj-Mh- 1993 ist 411 esa ;g fl)kUr Áfrikfnr fd;k x;k gS fd& Limitation Act Section 3 — Entries regarding title changed by Asstt. Land Records Officer on the basis of application by opposite party though during settlement operations existing entries can be changed only in accordance with decree/judgment of competent Court, legal transfer deed or order of Court — Order, void ab initio and could be set aside at any time — No question of limitation involved — Order of Settlement Commissioner, setting aside impugned order cannot be assailed. blh lEcU/k esa ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; dh [k.M ihB us ,-vkbZ-vkj- 1994 ,l-lh- 1128] 1990¼1½ vkj-,y-vkj- 556] 2000¼2½ vkj-,y-vkj- 39] ¼1994½ 4 ,l-,l-lh- 575] ,-vkbZ-vkj- 1964 ,l-lh- 1536 esa Áfrikfnr fl)kUrksa dks Qksyks djrs gq;s vkj-vkj-Mh- 202 ist 1 esa ;g fl)kUr Áfrikfnr fd;k gS fd& Raj. Land Revenue (Allotment of Land for Agricultural Purposes) Rules, 1970, Rule 14(4) — Cancellation of allotment — Allotment obtained by petitioner appellant by misrepresenting the fact that she was landless person whereas 43 bighas 5 biswas land already existing in favour of her husband-petitioner acquired khatedari rights after 10 years — Allotment cancelled by Collector after 30 years — Validity of — Held, allotment order being bad in eye of law being obtained by misrepresentation can be said to be ineffective — Conferment of khatedari right is only consequential which also cannot be maintained — Long lapse of time cannot be considered sufficient to save such allotment order obtained by misrepresenta-tion — Order of Collector not liable to be interfered with. 8- vr% mijksä rF;ksa] dkuwuh Áko/kkuksa ,oa U;kf;d n`"VkUrksa dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq;s vfrfjä ftyk dysDVj MhMokuk }kjk ÁLrqr ;g jsQjsUl Lohdkj fd;k tkrk gS rFkk xzke yw.kksnj ds [kljk uEcj xr 97] 109 ftlds gky [kljk uEcj 115] 130 gS] mä Hkwfe dks ckykth egkjkt okds nsg ykykljh ds uke ntZ djus ds vknsk fn;s tkrs gSA blh vuqlj.k esa vÁkFkhZx.k ds uke Loh—r ukekUrjdj.k la[;k 45 Hkh fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA fu.kZ; [kqys U;k;ky; esa lquk;k x;kA