Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1391 (RAJ)

Rajendra Prasad v. Board of Revenue

2009-05-21

MOHAMMAD RAFIQ

body2009
JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition is directed against the order dated 17.03.2001 passed by Board of Revenue, by which the order dated 08.01.1999 passed by Revenue Appellate Authority was reversed and order dated 09.04.1997 passed by the S.D.O., Behror, District-Alwar, appointing Receiver over the disputed agricultural land was restored. 2. Factual matrix of the case is that the respondent No. 4 (plaintiff) filed a revenue suit for declaration and permanent injunction in relation to land of Khasra No. 467 measuring 14 Bigha and Khasra No. 302 measuring 1 Bigha having new Khasras No. 708, 709, 723 and 724 against the petitioners and their two brothers, namely, Kanwar Singh and Sardar Singh; and also State of Rajasthan through Collector, Alwar. 3. The case set up by the respondent No. 4 was that her husband, namely, Ram Singh was the employee of Railway Protection Force and who died in the year 1968 in the national interest while fighting with the dacoits. After the death of plaintiff's husband, she requested the State Government for allotment of land to the extent of 30 Bigha for her maintenance. The plaintiff (Respondent No. 4 herein) was also given the benefits of gratuity and other service benefits after the death of her husband. 4. The plaintiff, being legally wedded wife of late Shri Ram Singh, was found eligible for allotment of the land by the District Collector, Alwar. The matter for allotment was being pursued by her father-in-law, Mool Chand, as she was an illiterate lady and not having the financial resources. The father-in-law of plaintiff got the land allotment of land measuring 15 Bigha of Khasra No. 467 and 302 in revenue village Ravana in his favour vide order dated 10.12.1975. Subsequently, the Patta was also issued in his name on 26.12.1975, whereas the land ought to have been allotted in the name of plaintiff-respondent No. 4, as her husband died while serving the nation. It is also averred that according to policy of the Government, she was required to be rehabilitated. 5. The suit was contested by the petitioner-defendants and it was contended that the plaintiff widow after death of Ram Singh, re-married with Sardar Singh, who is the real brother of the defendants-petitioners. The land was allotted to father of defendants-petitioners and not in favour of plaintiff-widow. 5. The suit was contested by the petitioner-defendants and it was contended that the plaintiff widow after death of Ram Singh, re-married with Sardar Singh, who is the real brother of the defendants-petitioners. The land was allotted to father of defendants-petitioners and not in favour of plaintiff-widow. It was contended that the defendants-petitioners were continuously cultivating the land since it was allotted in the year 1975 and the suit was filed after 21 years thereafter in the year 1996. 6. The plaintiff-respondent No. 4 filed an application under Section 212 (2) of Rajasthan Tenancy Act for appointment of Receiver. This application was opposed by the defendants-petitioners and it was contended that the petitioners have been regularly cultivating the agricultural land for so long, therefore, no case for appointment of Receiver is made out. The Sub Divisional Officer, Alwar vide his order dated 09.04.1997 allowed the application and appointed the Tehsildar as Receiver for taking the possession of the land in dispute. 7. Against the aforesaid order dated 09.04.1997, defendants-petitioners preferred appeal under Section 225 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Alwar. The Revenue Appellate Authority vide order dated 08.01.1999 allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated 09.04.1997 passed by the SDO, Behror, Alwar. 8. The plaintiff aggrieved by order dated 08.01.1999 preferred a revision petition before the Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue, vide order dated 17.03.2001 allowed the revision petition and set aside the order dated 08.01.1999 and upheld the order dated 09.04.1997 passed by S.D.O., Behror, Alwar. 9. Mr. R.K. Mathur, learned Counsel for the petitioners has argued that the learned S.D.O. as well as Board of Revenue both have been swayed away by sentimental considerations and did not decide the application for appointment of the, receiver on parameters that are referred to in Section 212 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act. He submits that entire evidence that was produced before the S.D.O. consisted of ration card of plaintiff, order of the Additional District Judge to provide her legal aid, copy of voter list and Jamabandi. Law settled on the aspect of appointment of receiver was not at all considered by the learned S.D.O. while allowing the application of the plaintiff. He submits that entire evidence that was produced before the S.D.O. consisted of ration card of plaintiff, order of the Additional District Judge to provide her legal aid, copy of voter list and Jamabandi. Law settled on the aspect of appointment of receiver was not at all considered by the learned S.D.O. while allowing the application of the plaintiff. Learned Counsel referring to Clauses (a) and (b) of sub Section (1) of 212 supra, argued that the receiver can be appointed only when any property to which such suit or proceedings relates is in danger of being wasted, damaged or alienated by any party thereto, or if any party to such suit or proceeding threatens or intends to remove or dispose of the said property in order to defeat the ends of justice, the Court may grant a temporary injunction and, if necessary, appoint a receiver. 10. As per sub Section (2) of Section 212, that order can be withdrawn, if any person against whom an injunction has been granted or in respect of whose property a receiver has been appointed under sub-Section (1) may offer cash security in such amount as the Court may determine to compensate the opposite party in case the suit or proceeding is decided against such persons, and on depositing the amount of such security, the Court may withdraw the injunction or the order appointing a receiver, as the case may be. 11. Mr. R.K. Mathur, learned Counsel for the petitioners further submits that the petitioners have been continuously participating in the auction held by the Tehsildar (Receiver) on annual basis and making payment of rent determined during such proceedings and presently also they are in possession of the disputed land, receiver only holds symbolic possession. The respondents can even be compensated by taking the security amount. In support of his contention, learned Counsel relied upon the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case S. Saleema Bi v. S. Pyari Begum & Anr., reported in 2000 (9) SCC p. 560 . 12. Mr. S.N. Kumawat, learned Counsel for the respondent-plaintiff opposed the writ petition and submitted that the learned S.D.O. has passed the considered and reasoned order, which does not call for interference. It is contended that the land was decided to be allotted in favour of plaintiff, widow of late Ram Singh, who died while serving the nation. 12. Mr. S.N. Kumawat, learned Counsel for the respondent-plaintiff opposed the writ petition and submitted that the learned S.D.O. has passed the considered and reasoned order, which does not call for interference. It is contended that the land was decided to be allotted in favour of plaintiff, widow of late Ram Singh, who died while serving the nation. As per the policy of the State this land should be allotted to the widow and not to her father-in-law. Taking advantage of the fact that plaintiff was a "Pardanasheen" lady, the land was got allotted in the name of father-in-law, Mool Chand vide order dated 10.12.1975. 13. The Court on the basis of prima facie case of the plaintiff and considering that the disputed land could be alienated by the defendants, rightly passed the order and appointed the receiver. The land in dispute is in possession of the Receiver ever since the order passed by the S.D.O. at least from the date of order passed by the Board of Revenue on 17.03.2001. The writ petition thus deserves to be dismissed. 14. I having given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and carefully perused the impugned order passed by the Courts below. I find that while the S.D.O. has recorded a finding on prima facie case in favour of plaintiff-respondent but has omitted to consider other parameters as are contained in Section 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, which may be necessary for appointment of receiver. Learned S.D.O. has not examined the fact that in the suit that was filed by the plaintiff-respondent, she had alternatively prayed for share in the aforesaid agricultural land as per law. It found prima facie case on the basis that the land was allotted in lieu of services rendered by late Ram Singh, who was the husband of the plaintiff-respondent. The fact that deceased, Ram Singh was son of Mool Chand, in whose name the land was allotted, cannot be lost sight of. It found prima facie case on the basis that the land was allotted in lieu of services rendered by late Ram Singh, who was the husband of the plaintiff-respondent. The fact that deceased, Ram Singh was son of Mool Chand, in whose name the land was allotted, cannot be lost sight of. This will be decided in the main suit whether or not the plaintiff was entitled to entire land or portion thereof, but the fact remains that the ingredients of Section 212 that are required to be satisfied before appointment of a receiver, were not properly gone into by the learned S.D.O. The Revenue Appellate Authority, in my view, has rightly considered the matter from that perception and held that the appointment of receiver could be made only on those principles which are interpreted in Section 212 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act and under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 , CPC and not on compassionate considerations. 15. The mere fact that the plaintiff-respondent was widow, could not by itself be a determinative factor for appointment of receiver, although it may be one of the factors, when the Court considers prima facie case of the plaintiff vis-a-vis apprehension of alienation of property in accordance with provisions of law. However, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the defendants are ready to furnish an undertaking before the S.D.O., where the suit is pending, that they will not transfer or otherwise alienate the land in dispute during pendency of the suit. The petitioners who are even otherwise in actual possession of the land having participated in auction held by the Tehsildar in the capacity of receiver, who retains only symbolic possession of the land. 16. The petitioners who are even otherwise in actual possession of the land having participated in auction held by the Tehsildar in the capacity of receiver, who retains only symbolic possession of the land. 16. In my considered view, ends of justice would be met if the amount that was paid by the petitioners in the auction that was held in the immediate past is taken as the security amount for the current year and the same is increased with an additional amount of 10 per cent per annum thereof in each of the subsequent years during pendency of the suit, which shall be deposited with the Tehsildar, who would in turn shall deposit such amount in a nationalised bank, to be ultimately paid to the party in whose favour the civil suit decides, either fully or in part, to the extent such parties are held entitled to get the 'and in dispute. The impugned order dated 09.04.1997 passed by the S.D.O., Behror, Alwar and order dated 17.03.2001 passed by the Board of Revenue are hereby quashed and set aside and instead the petitioners are allowed to retain the possession of the disputed land, subject to their furnishing undertaking to the above effect before the S.D.O., Behror, Alwar and paying on annual basis the amount, as indicated above to the Receiver i.e. Tehsildar, Behror. 17. In the result, the writ petition is allowed in the terms indicated above.Writ Petition Allowed. *******