Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 2032 (RAJ)

Chanwali v. Ramkunwar

2009-09-16

G.K.TIWARI

body2009
TIWARI, M.—This is a revision petition under Section 230 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (in short `the Act') against the impugned judgment dated 12.3.07 of Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaipur. 2. Briefly stated, the facts are that during pendency of a regular suit in the Court of Sub-Divisional Officer Khetri an application under Section 212 of the Act was filed by the petitioner-plaintiffs before Sub-Divisional Officer Khetri who by his judgment dated 5.10.06 allowed the application and restrained the non-petitioner-defendants from transferring the land by way of sale, mortgage or in any other way. Aggrieved against this judgment of Sub-Divisional Officer, the non-petitioner No. 1 filed an appeal under Section 225 of the Act before Revenue Appellate Authority Sikar who by his impugned judgment dated 12.3.07 allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of Sub-Divisional Officer. Hence the revision. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the petitioners and their ancestors were khatedar tenants of the disputed land having cultivatory possession but Gram Panchayat conferred khatedari right on the non-petitioners under Section 19 of the Act in utter disregarded of the provisions of the Act. Khatedari right cannot be conferred under Section 19 of the Act by Gram Panchayat; secondly khatedari right cannot be conferred on the land of a person of scheduled caste. So there was nothing illegal when trial court granted temporary injunction in respect of the disputed land restraining the non-petitioners from disposing of the land by way of sale, gift or mortgage or by any other mode of transfer. The Revenue Appellate Authority illegally set aside the judgment of Sub-Divisional Officer overlooking the legal provision that khatedari right under Section 19 of the Act is not accruable to the non-petitioners in respect of the land belonging to a person of scheduled caste. 5. I have given thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the petitioner, perused the impugned judgment and gone through the case file. 6. A perusal of the judgment dated 5.10.06 of Sub-Divisional Officer shows that he has allowed the application under Section 212 of the Act by restraining the non-petitioners from transferring the land by way of sale, gift, mortgage or any other mode of transfer. 6. A perusal of the judgment dated 5.10.06 of Sub-Divisional Officer shows that he has allowed the application under Section 212 of the Act by restraining the non-petitioners from transferring the land by way of sale, gift, mortgage or any other mode of transfer. The petitioners claim that they and their ancestors were khatedar tenants of the disputed land having cultivatory possession on it but concerned Gram Panchayat conferred khatedari right under Section 19 of the Act on the non-petitioners whereas neither the land of persons of scheduled caste is available for conferment of khatedari rights under Section 19 of the Act or any other non-scheduled caste person, nor any Gram Panchayat is competent to confer khatedari right on anybody under Section 19 of the Act. This disputed question of fact and law would be decided in the main suit but prima facie it appears that the petitioners have some interest and stake in the disputed land. In order to protect the interest of the petitioners-plaintiffs the trial Court had granted temporary injunction by restraining the non-petitioners from disposing of the land by way of sale, gift, mortgage or in any other mode of transfer till final disposal of the suit. This order of trial Court was perfectly in keeping with the principle of lis pendens. The nature of suit land cannot be changed or disturbed till final adjudication of the dispute but Revenue Appellate Authority has set aside the judgment of Sub-Divisional Officer mainly on the ground that the non-petitioners were recorded in the revenue record of Svt. 2012 as mi-d`"kd (sub-tenant) having possession on the land and presently the non-petitioners-appellants were also recorded khatedars. A careful perusal of the judgment of trial Court shows that his order of restrain about alienation of the land in any mode is not injurious to the interest of the non-petitioners either, as trial Court has simply restrained any mode of transfer of the disputed land till decision of the suit. The fact that the disputed land purportedly once belonged to a person of scheduled caste on which khatedari right under Section 19 of the Act is conferred, is lost sight of by the Revenue Appellate Authority while leaving the non-petitioners free to alienate the disputed land- which might lead to multifarious litigations and other complications. The fact that the disputed land purportedly once belonged to a person of scheduled caste on which khatedari right under Section 19 of the Act is conferred, is lost sight of by the Revenue Appellate Authority while leaving the non-petitioners free to alienate the disputed land- which might lead to multifarious litigations and other complications. Thus, Revenue Appellate Authority has committed illegality and material irregularity in passing the impugned judgment dated 12.3.07 which cannot be supported. 7. In view of the foregoing discussion, the revision is allowed, the impugned judgment dated 12.3.07 of Revenue Appellate Authority Sikar is set aside the judgment dated 5.10.06 of Sub-Divisional Officer Khetri is upheld. Pronounced.