Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2099 (RAJ)

Shantinathji Sthan Deh v. State of Raj.

2006-07-03

K.S.RATHORE

body2006
Honble MATHUR, J.—A challenge is given to the correctness, validity and propriety of the judgment dated 29.4.1992 passed by Board of Revenue affirming the order dated 25.3.1985 passed by the Commissioner. Department of Settlement, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur. 2. In brief, facts of the case are that Respondents No. 6 and 7 Shri Tekchand and Pannalal, by submitting an application to the Assistant Settlement Officer, Udaipur sought correction in revenue records with regard to khatedari rights of the land bearing Khasra Nos. 956, 957, 958 and 959, village Ogna, measuring 0.89 hectares. According to the respondents named above they were khatedars of the land concerned but at the time of resumption of maufi land "Shri Shantinathji Sthan Deh" a temple was erroneously shown as a khatedar. 3. The Assistant Settlement Officer by order dated 28.8.1981 rejected the application aforesaid. In appeal challenge was given to the order dated 28.8.1981 on the ground that the Assistant Settlement Officer failed to appreciate that:- (1) the applicant appellant was shown as a tenant in the revenue records but at the time of settlement, the settlement department erroneously and without having jurisdiction altered the existing entries in contravention of the provisions of Sec. 9 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Jagir Resumption Act 1952 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1952"); (2) "Shri Shantinathji Sthan Deh" was sanctioned and granted annuity in lieu of rent, therefore, no right to be treated as tenant was existing and (3) the entries existing in revenue records prior to resumption of maufi land, Shri Deva, father of applicants was shown as tenant and that entry was never challenged by "Shri Shantinathji Sthan Deh" u/S. 56 of "Kanoon Maal Mewar", therefore, the temple was erroneously conferred tenancy. 4. The Settlement Officer-cum-officer Land Records (Tribal Area). Udaipur by order dated 24.8.1982 rejected the appeal by holding that "Shri Shantiriathji Sthan Deh" was a maufidar and being perpetual minor the land under its holding is "khudkast, therefore, no error was committed by entering tenancy in the name of "Shri Shantinathji Sthan Deh". 5. The Settlement Officer while rejecting the appeal taken into consideration a panadi issued by "Rajasthan Settlement Department, Udaipur" wherein the petitioner is recorded as a person accepting "hasil" and father of the Respondents No. 6 and 7 is shown as "Asami". 6. 5. The Settlement Officer while rejecting the appeal taken into consideration a panadi issued by "Rajasthan Settlement Department, Udaipur" wherein the petitioner is recorded as a person accepting "hasil" and father of the Respondents No. 6 and 7 is shown as "Asami". 6. The Respondents No. 6 and 7 further assailed validity of the order dated 24.8.1982 by way of filing second appeal before the Settlement Commissioner. The Commissioner by judgment dated 25.3.1985 accepted the appeal and ordered for entering the land concerned under the khatedari of the Respondents No. 6 and 7. The Commissioner while accepting the appeal held that "Shri Shantinathji sthan Deh" was a maufidar and therefore, on resumption of jagir under the Act of 1952 it was entitled for annuity only, whereas Tekchand and Pannalal being shown as "Asami" in the revenue records were entitled to be recorded as khatedar in revenue records. 7. The petitioner being aggrieved by judgment dated 25.3.1985 preferred a revision petition before the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer and that too came to be rejected by judgment dated 29.4.1992. The Board of Revenue while affirming the order dated 25.3.1985 passed, by the Collector held that the order under challenge does not suffer from any error of jurisdiction warranting interference of the Board under its revisional jurisdiction. The Board of Revenue also held that after extinction of maufi rights the temple being not having "khudkast" land could have acquired tenancy rights. 8. While giving challenge to the judgments impugned the submission of the Counsel for the petitioner are that.- (1) the Settlement Commissioner as well as the Board of Revenue failed to appreciate that khatedari rights could not be determined without getting by a declaratory decree of a competent revenue Court and (2) "Shri Shantinathji Sthan Deh", a deity is having khatedari rights and the Respondents No. 6 and 7 were its sub-tenants. The deity being not a person in existence got its land cultivated on its behalf by the Respondents No. 6 and 7, therefore, the land is to be treated as "khudkast" by deity. 9. No reply to the writ petition is filed on behalf of the respondents, however, under the directions given by this Court the Respondents No. 6 and 7 placed on record a copy of the order dated 24.2.1967 whereby annuity was sanctioned to the petitioner under the Act of 1952. 9. No reply to the writ petition is filed on behalf of the respondents, however, under the directions given by this Court the Respondents No. 6 and 7 placed on record a copy of the order dated 24.2.1967 whereby annuity was sanctioned to the petitioner under the Act of 1952. Miss Rekha Borana, Counsel for the Respondents No. 6 and 7 while defending the judgments impugned urged that the land was not of deity but was given to temple in maufi and that too came to an end on its resumption under the Act of 1952. The temple is getting annuity under the Act of 1952 and, therefore, it cannot be treated as "khudkast" land of the temple. The Respondents No. 6 and 7, being personally cultivating the land, were entered as "Asami" in the revenue records, therefore, in view of Sec. 9 of the Act of 1952 read with Sec. 13 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, are entitled to be recorded as tenants of the land concerned. 10. Heard Counsel for the parties. 11. It is not in dispute between the parties that the petitioner was shown khatedar of the land concerned after resumption of maufidari rights under the Act of 1952 on basis of a "panadi" issued by the Settlement Department, Udaipur wherein the petitioner is shown as maufidar accepting, "hasil" and Shri Deva father of the Respondents No. 6 and 7 is shown as "Asami". According to Shri M.C. Bhoot, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri Deva was a sub tenant and the petitioner was a tenant, therefore, in revenue records the petitioner was rightly recorded as khatedar on resumption of maufi land and the entry made in revenue records was not open to be altered without a decree of declaration in this regard by a competent revenue Court. 12. Per contra, it is urged by learned Counsel for the Respondents No. 6 and 7 that even according to admitted facts a "hasil" was accepted by the petitioner and, therefore, it cannot be assumed that the Respondents No. 6 and 7 were cultivating the land on behalf of the petitioner. The Respondents No. 6 and 7 in fact were having self-cultivatory possession over the land and they were paying "hasil" to the petitioner as the land was under its maufi. The Respondents No. 6 and 7 in fact were having self-cultivatory possession over the land and they were paying "hasil" to the petitioner as the land was under its maufi. The maufi rights came to an end under the Act of 1952, therefore, the Respondents No. 6 and 7 were to be recorded as tenants but the petitioner was erroneously entered as tenant in the khatedari records, therefore, the correction was sought by submitting an application, as such there was no need of any declaration by a revenue Court. 13. As stated above, the "panadi" issued by Settlement Department, Udaipur is admitted between the parties and according to "panadi" the petitioner was accepting "hasil". Shri Deva, father of the Respondents No. 6 and 7 is shown as "Asami". Meaning thereby they were cultivating the land. The fact that the Respondents No. 6 and 7 and their father were cultivating the land is also not disputed by the petitioner. The Respondents No.6 and 7 on basis of "panadi" by treating themselves in self cultivatory possession of the land considered themselves as tenants and, therefore, sought correction in revenue records. The correction sought by them is totally dependent to the revenue records existing on the date of settlement after resumption of maufi land, therefore, in peculiar facts of the case there was no need for netting a decree for declaration as emphasised by the petitioner and such a correction could have been made by submitting an application. No error, therefore, is committed by the Settlement Commissioner while accepting the application preferred by the Respondents No. 6 and 7. 14. The other submission of Counsel for the petitioner that the land concerned is to be treated under "khudkast" of "Shri Shantinathji Sthan Deh" being perpetual minor too is having no merit. By the force of provisions of Sec. 22 of the Act of 1952 the right, title and interest of a jagirdar/maufidar in jagir/maufi land stood resumed to the Government free from all encumbrances. Consequently all rights and interest of the petitioner in maufi land were resumed with the State Government. The only right remained with the petitioner was to claim annuity. The State Government sanctioned and granted annuity to the petitioner. The land could have been entered under the tenancy of the petitioner only in event of it being under "khudkast" as prescribed u/S. 10 of the Act of 1952. The only right remained with the petitioner was to claim annuity. The State Government sanctioned and granted annuity to the petitioner. The land could have been entered under the tenancy of the petitioner only in event of it being under "khudkast" as prescribed u/S. 10 of the Act of 1952. The petitioner was not at all having "khudkast" possession over the land concerned as it is apparent from perusal of panadi" wherein the petitioner is shown as a person accepting "hasil" and Shri Deva is shown as "Asami". 15. The term "hasil" under various Hindi Dictionaries is meant as a revenue recovered by Jagirdar, Jamindar or King from farmers, definite part of agriculture produce charged by the State as tax, income from agriculture produce. This term is not at all concerned to process of cultivation or participation in it. The reference of the petitioner as a person accepting "hasil" is sufficient to establish that on its part there was no participation in process of cultivation but was accepting a part of agriculture produce or tax on agriculture produce. So fat as Respondents No. 6 and 7 are concerned, it is the position admitted that they were cultivating the land and also paying "hasil" to the petitioner. It is not the case of the petitioner that the Respondents No. 6 and 7 were cultivating on its behalf and were also paid for that. The Act of 1952 was enacted with an object to abolish Jagirdari system wherein Jagirdars were intermediary in between tiller of the soil and the State and with also the ever chrished aim to provide land to the tiller of the soil. The interpretation of the panadi" advanced by the Counsel for the petitioner to establish the petitioner in "khudkast" of the land is absolutely against the aim and object of the Act of 1952. The land was also not personally cultivated by the petitioner through its "shebayat". The grant of annuity to the petitioner is also an additional factor to prove that the petitioner was not personally cultivating the land and was having only maufi rights and those were suitably compensated by payment of annuity. 16. In view of whatever discussed above. I do not find any error in the judgments impugned warranting interference of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition, therefore, is dismissed.