Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1302 (RAJ)

Gopi Ram v. State of Rajasthan.

2007-07-11

GYAN SUDHA MISRA, K.C.SHARMA

body2007
Honble MISRA, J.—This appeal has been preferred against the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 29.11.1995 in S.B.C.W.P. No. 1020/1984 by which the writ petition filed by the petitioners-appellants herein who had challenged the order passed by the Board of Revenue was dismissed. 2. The entire dispute arises out of a proceeding initiated by the respondent-deity to change the entries in respect of 8 bighas and 5 biswas of land situated in several khasras in Islampur, Tehsil Behror, District Alwar. The proceeding had been initiated as the respondent No.4- the idol of Shri Govind Deo Ji Maharaj, Tehsil Behror District Alwar raised a grievance through the Pujari that the land which was entered in the name of the appellants-petitioners was erroneous and the same should have been rectified. The proceeding ultimately reached up to the Board of Revenue and it was held that the entries made in the Revenue record in the name of the deity the idol of Shri Govind Deo Ji Maharaj District Alwar was legal and correct. The petitioners/appellants feeling aggrieved with this order filed a writ petition challenging the orders passed by the authorities including the Board of Revenue which was dismissed as the learned Single Judge was pleased to hold that the present proceeding arose out of the application for mutation for transfer of entries which obviously hinges upon the ownership of the title. The learned Single Judge took note of the fact that the respondent-deity has already filed a suit with regard to the tenancy right which is pending before the trial Court. The learned Single Judge was pleased to hold that as the entries made in the revenue record where only fiscal in nature, it did not confer any right or title to the respondent-deity and the contesting parties would be free to adduce their evidence before the trial Court and the ultimate decision of the trial Court would be binding on the parties and therefore, no interference was called for under Article 226 of the Constitution. 3. The petitioners/appellants herein instead of contesting the suit before the trial Court in order to get the title/khatedari rights adjudicated, they preferred an appeal before this court wherein they have challenged the correctness of the order passed by the authorities allowing change of entries in the revenue record in the name of the respondent-deity. 4. 3. The petitioners/appellants herein instead of contesting the suit before the trial Court in order to get the title/khatedari rights adjudicated, they preferred an appeal before this court wherein they have challenged the correctness of the order passed by the authorities allowing change of entries in the revenue record in the name of the respondent-deity. 4. Challenging the orders passed by the Courts below, it was submitted by the counsel for the appellants Miss Raj Sharma that the change in the entries in revenue record have been allowed up to the Board of Revenue without examining the claim of khatedari rights of the petitioners/appellants in regard to the land in question which they had acquired from the erstwhile ruler which had allowed the land to the cultivated by the petitioners/appellants and hence, the entries should not have been allowed to be changed in the revenue record. 5. Having considered the plea raised on behalf of the petitioners/appellants in the light of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, we do not find any merit in this appeal as even if the plea of the appellants is considered as justified, the same obviously will have to be tested at the appropriate forum which is the trial Court where the suit is pending. The appellants obviously will have ample opportunity to prove their khatedari rights and possession on the land in question as against the respondent-deity and the learned Single Judge has already stated in the impugned order that the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court will ultimately be binding on the parties which clearly means that the decree passed by the trial Court ultimately will be the determining factor for the mutation entries. 6. It goes without saying that if the appellants ultimately succeeds in securing a decree in their favour in regard to the title and possession to the land in question, the entries subsequently will have to be changed in the revenue record. 6. It goes without saying that if the appellants ultimately succeeds in securing a decree in their favour in regard to the title and possession to the land in question, the entries subsequently will have to be changed in the revenue record. But as of now, if prima facie before the authorities who were quasi judicial authorities did not find prima facie case in favour of the appellants to accede to their plea of rectification in the revenue record and the change was allowed at the instance of the respondent-deity, the learned Single Judge obviously could not have adjudicated this dispute by way of entertaining a writ petition under Article 226 as that obviously will require investigation of the question of title which has to be decided only on the basis of evidence adduced by the contesting parties. As already stated the appellants will avail this opportunity in the suit which is pending and wee see no cause or anxiety for the appellants to press the appeal. Thus, we see no justification to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single judge and hence the appeal is dismissed but without costs.