Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 354 (RAJ)

Tulchi v. Board of Revenue

2009-02-05

GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS

body2009
Hon'ble VYAS, J.—In this writ petition the petitioners has prayed for quashing order Annex. 6 dated 4.9.1981 and, so, also, Annex. 7 dated 6.3.1995 passed by the Addl. Collector (Ceiling), Pali and Annex. 8 dated 16.12.1997 passed by the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan at Ajmer. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the husband of petitioner late Mool Chand was holding 336.4 bigha land in village Kharadi, Tehsil Kharachi. The said land was uncommand land. As per the petitioner on 31.8.1967, the said total land was sold for an amount of Rs. 20,000/- to 16 persons by way of registered sale-deed Annex. 1. On the basis of the said sale-deed Annex. 1, mutation was opened in the name of the purchasers and entries were made on 22.5.1968 which is evident from document Annex. 2. The case of the petitioner is that after coming into force of the provisions of the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973, a return was filed by late Mool Chand and the learned S.D.O., Sojat, after conducting the necessary inquiry, reached conclusion that no such land is held by Mool Chand, therefore, the proceedings against the Mool Chand was dropped vide order dated 5.11.1976, Annex. 5 to the writ petition. 3. From the pleadings in the writ petition, it is evident that the State Government passed an order under Section 15(1) of the Act of 1973, whereunder, the Addl. Collector (Ceiling), Pali re-opened the case against Mool Chand which had already been decided vide Annex. 5 dated 5.11.1976 by the learned S.D.O., Sojat; and, for that purpose, notices were issued to the legal heir of late Mool Chand, the present petitioner. After issuance of the notice, when nobody gave appearance before the Addl. Collector (Ceiling), Pali the matter was decided ex-parte by the revenue authority vide judgment Annex. 7 dated 6.3.1996, by which, the revenue authority Addl. Collector (Ceiling), Pali held that although Jamabandi of Samwat year 2045 to 2049 show the transfer of the holding under Mutation No. 411 in favour of 16 other persons, which was sold by late Mool Chand to 16 other persons; but, how the transfer was made it is not proved by any documentary evidence and, hence, it is not established that the transfer was bona fide. While giving the said finding, Addl. While giving the said finding, Addl. Collector (Ceiling), Pali refused to accept the transfer which is made by late Mool Chand by registere sale-deed and held that as per Section 4, the family of the petitioner is entitled to hold only 135 bigha of land and rest of the land measuring 191 bigha 6 biswa is in excess of the prescribed ceiling limit, therefore, order was made by the authority for acquiring the said land by the State. 4. The petitioner challenged the said order Annex. 7 by way of filing appeal before the Board of Revenue. The appeal filed by the petitioner was however dismissed vide judgment dated 16.12.1997, Annex. 8, whereby, the order of the Addl. Collector (Ceiling), Pali dated 6.3.1995 was upheld. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the finding given by the Addl. Collector (Ceiling), Pali and, so also, the Revenue Board is totally perverse being contrary to the material available on record because, as per Annex. 1, the land was sold by last Mool Chand in the year 1967 by way of registered sale-deed and, upon that basis, mutation No. 411 was made in the revenue record in favour of the 16 purchasers in whose favour the said transfer by registered sale-deed was made. It is vehemently contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that when Jamabandi record was there and mutation No. 411 was also on record, then, obviously the respondent authorities were under obligations to consider the same; but, while ignoring the record and the above fact of transfer, impugned order Annex. 7 dated 6.3.1995 was made by the Addl. Collector (Ceiling), Pali and, so also, by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer in appeal filed against order dated 6.3.1995. Therefore, the main limb of the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the finding of the authorities below that there is not documentary evidence on record to show the transfer is totally contrary to the facts of the case because it is evident from Annex. 1 that the land was sold by late Mool Chand and this entry was appearing in Mutation No. 411 which was on record. 6. After having perused the record, in my opinion, the learned Revenue Board as well as Addl. 1 that the land was sold by late Mool Chand and this entry was appearing in Mutation No. 411 which was on record. 6. After having perused the record, in my opinion, the learned Revenue Board as well as Addl. Collector (Ceiling), Pali committed error while not considering the fact of transfer of the land by late Mool Chand by way of registered sale deed on 6.10.1967. In this view of the matter, I deem it just and proper to remit this matter to the Board of Revenue, Ajmer while quashing impugned judgment Annex. 8 dated 16.12.1997, with direction that after considering all the points raised by the petitioner in appeal and the fact that the land was sold by later Mool Chand by way of registered sale-deed in the year 1967, the matter maybe decided afresh after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 7. With aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of with further direction that the matter shall be decided by the Board of Revenue within three months from the date of receiving certified copy of this order.