Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 274 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Jethuji through L. Rs.

2009-01-28

DINESH MAHESHWARI

body2009
Hon'ble MAHESHWARI, J.—An application for making, reference to the Board of Revenue under Section 82 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 ('the Act of 1956') as moved by the Teshildar, Jodhpur in relation to the entries made in the revenue records concerning Khasra No. 632 of Village and Tehsil, Jodhpur came to be rejected by the Collector, Jodhpur on 17.7.1995; and a review application was also rejected on 24.6.1996. Aggrieved, the petitioner State, through the Tehsildar, Jodhpur moved an application under Section 9 of the Act of 1956 before the Board of Revenue but the Board did not find any reason to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Act of 1956 and rejected the application so moved by the order dated 7.7.2000. 2. The petitioner State has, thus, preferred this writ petition seeking the reliefs that the aforesaid orders dated 7.7.2000, 24.6.1996 and 17.7.1995 be quashed and set aside and mutations bearing numbers 519, 601 and 655 as effected in relation to the land in question may be set aside. It is essentially alleged that the land in question was recorded as Gair Mumkin Padat in Svt. Year 1982 but then, in Svt. Years 2015-2016 was shown in possession of the ex-ruler and an entry was made in khasra girdawari without any order by the competent authority; and that the power of attorney holder of the natural guardian of ex-ruler entered into a sale agreement on 28.8.1964 and mutation No. 519 was made on 21.8.1986 in favour of 31 transferees and subsequent mutations were made in favour of the legal heirs of some of transferees. It is the contention of the State that such mutations remain entirely illegal and could not have been effected at all. 3. In this writ petition, the persons concerned, in whose favour the disputed mutations were effected, have been joined as respondents. It is also noticed that some other persons, said to be the subsequent transferees, have also been ordered to be impleaded as parties to this writ petition. 4. 3. In this writ petition, the persons concerned, in whose favour the disputed mutations were effected, have been joined as respondents. It is also noticed that some other persons, said to be the subsequent transferees, have also been ordered to be impleaded as parties to this writ petition. 4. The application (IA No. 5838/2008) has been moved on behalf of one Smt. Nikki Mehta with the submissions that her late husband has had a direct interest in the property in dispute inasmuch as he was one of the co-purchasers under an agreement for sale that was subject matter of a civil suit for specific performance wherein a decree was passed with certain directions that was, of course, challenged and even when the challenge failed before the Single Judge of this Court, SAC No. 17/1998 remains pending in that regard and then, by way of interim order, the Division Bench of this Court has observed that any alienation made during the pendency of the said appeal would be attracting the doctrine of lis pendence and the details of the property in dispute were ordered to be sent to the Registrar concerned. It is submitted that the applicant has a direct interest in the suit property and any order passed in this writ petition shall affect the rights of the applicant and hence, she is required to be joined as a necessary party to this writ petition. 5. Learned counsel Mr. Girish Joshi appearing for the applicant has thoroughly referred to the facts regarding existence of agreement in favour of the late husband of the applicant, the decree as passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 2 Jodhpur in Civil Suit No. 206/1995, and pendency of the aforesaid SAC No. 17/1998 before the Division Bench of this Court and submitted that the applicant has a direct interest in the suit property and deserves to be allowed to join this writ petition as a party respondent. Learned counsel submitted that if for any reason, the arrayed respondents would choose not to defend this matter properly or, for any order passed in this petition, the title to the suit property goes out of their hands or suffers any set-back, that will have a direct effect on the legal rights of the applicant in the property in question and therefore, the applicant having a direct interest in the litigation deserves to be permitted to join this litigation. Learned counsel submitted in the alternative that at any rate the applicant cannot be said to be altogether a stranger or busybody in the matter and for protection of her rights and in the interest of justice, she deserves to be allowed at least to intervene in the matter. 6. The application as moved on behalf of the said applicant has been opposed by the learned Additional Advocate General Mr. G.R. Punia appearing for the petitioner and so also by the learned counsel Mr. P.P. Choudhary appearing for the private respondents with the submissions that the applicant has no existing legal right in the matter and cannot be permitted to join this litigation. It is contended that the present petition essentially remains a petition seeking writ of certiorari against the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities and the persons concerned, who were parties before such Revenue Authorities are, of course, the parties to the petition but none else could be considered to be even a proper party in the matter. It has also been contended that the mater is being litigated for over a decade and the applicant or her predecessor otherwise never came forward to join the matter before the Revenue Authorities and the application as moved at this stage is not bona fide and deserves to be rejected. Learned counsel appearing for the private respondents additionally emphasised on the submissions that the said respondents are and have been defending the matter thoroughly; they had contested the matter before the Collector and so also before the Board of Revenue and are also contesting this writ petition and it cannot be assumed by any stretch of imagination that they are not defending the matter. 7. 7. Having given a thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and having examined the records, this Court is clearly of opinion that the application (IA No. 5838/2008) as moved by the applicant Smt. Nikki Mehta for impleadment remains totally bereft of substance and deserves to be rejected. 8. Without going into the unnecessary details of the civil suit for specific performance as filed by the applicant's husband Pukh Raj as co-plaintiff, even when it is noticed that twice over decrees were passed in the said suit granting specific performance separately in relation to the different parties to the suit but on certain conditions, it remains a fact that the plaintiffs did not carry out all the requirements of the decrees of the trial Court and the terms of such decrees have effectively put a clog on their rights to seek specific performance. Of course, in relation to the decree dated 20.6.1996, after dismissal of the appeal by the Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court by the order dated 16.10.1997, the matter has been taken up in the aforesaid SAC No. 17/1998 that remains pending consideration before the Division Bench of this Court and, therefore, no further comments in that regard are to be made herein but then, the fact of the matter remains that as on date, any alleged right of the applicant in relation to the suit properties remains subject to adjudication by the Division Bench. In view of the pendency of the said litigation, the applicant could only be said to be having a potential right and being in the process of specific performance against the vendors and not beyond. Admittedly, there is no registered sale document in favour of the applicant or her predecessor; and, as at present, the applicant is having no title to the property in question. 9. As noticed, the present litigation essentially concerns the State and the persons in whose favour the disputed mutations were effected. If the applicant or her predecessor entered into any agreement for purchase of the disputed property or part thereof with the person, or some of them, in whose favour the mutations were effected, unless the right for specific performance is pronounced and a sale document is executed in her favour, the applicant cannot be said to be having a direct existing interest in the suit property. It may be reiterated that so far the applicant's remedy against the proposed vendors is concerned, the same is not the subject matter of consideration herein and no comments are being made in that regard but on the admitted fact situation, the applicant, having no existing right in the suit property, cannot be considered a necessary party in this matter. 10. The suggestions as made about the likelihood of the respondents not defending the matter properly has its own shortcomings. There is no indication whatsoever on record that the respondents had not taken up the contest of the matter against the petitioner nor there appears any basis behind the apprehension as stated. Even in that regard the applicant might have her dispute with, or remedies against, the said respondents but cannot be said to be having a right of impleadment in this writ petition so as to litigate against the petitioner-State. 11. The prayer for intervention as made in the alternative by the learned counsel Mr. Girish Joshi appearing for the applicant cannot be accepted either. Looking to the subject matter of this petition, there does not appear any requirement to hear the applicant on any of the points involved. The application (IA No. 5838/2008) stands rejected.