Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1396 (RAJ)

Rameshwar v. Rameshwar

2010-08-06

G.K.TIWARI

body2010
TIWARI, M.—This is an appeal under Section 76 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (in short `the Act') against the impugned judgment dated 10.3.05 of Divisional Commissioner Jaipur passed in appeal No. 14/2004. 2. The facts, in brief, leading to the second appeal are that the respondents-applicants had filed an application under Section 136 of the Act before Sub-Divisional Officer Navalgarh for recording of the disputed land as `rasta' in the revenue record and depiction of this `rasta' in the revenue map. Sub-Divisional Officer rejected this application vide his order dated 22.1.04 against which an appeal under section 75 of the Act was preferred before Divisional Commissioner Jaipur who allowed the appeal and remitted the case back to the Sub-Divisional Officer for re-hearing and re-decision in light of the observations made by him. Aggrieved against the impugned judgment dated 10.3.05 of Divisional Commissioner Jaipur, the instant second appeal is filed in this court. 3. I have heard the learned counsels of both the parties. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the respondents-applicants wanted to change the location and position of the `rasta' from khasra No. 74 to khasra No. 72 which is not possible under Section 136 of the Act; which can be invoked only to correct clerical error in the revenue record or any such error to which both the parties agree to have been committed or when any error is detected during the course of inspection by the Land Records Officer. Neither a new `rasta' can be created nor existing `rasta' can be shifted under the provisions of section 136 of the Act. Sub-Divisional Officer had rightly rejected the application but Divisional Commissioner Jaipur illegally allowed the appeal and directed the Sub-Divisional Officer to create `rasta' under the provision of Rule 369 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Land Records) Rules 1957 (in short `the Rules of 1957'). Rule 369 of the Rules of 1957 is not attracted here. This rule is about the responsibility of Sub-Divisional Officer for correct maintenance of the maps and records of the Sub-Division. So the impugned judgment of Divisional Commissioner should be set aside. 5. Rule 369 of the Rules of 1957 is not attracted here. This rule is about the responsibility of Sub-Divisional Officer for correct maintenance of the maps and records of the Sub-Division. So the impugned judgment of Divisional Commissioner should be set aside. 5. Opposing the contentions of the appellants, the learned counsel for the respondents pleaded that the concerned Gram Panchayat has held that the existing `rasta' passes through khasra No. 72 and 73 and not through khasra No. 74 as shown by the dotted line in the map. In old settlement there was no `rasta' in khasra No. 74; but it is illegally shown during the course of settlement. Whereas this `rasta' should have been carved in khasra No. 72 and 73 as per its real location. Sub-Divisional Officer has been empowered under rule 369 of the Rules of 1957 for making correction in the map. Thus, Divisional Commissioner has not committed any illegality in passing the impugned judgment and in remanding the case to Sub-Divisional Officer for re-hearing and re-decision in light of his responsibilities under Rule 369 of the Rules of 1957. The learned counsel prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 6. I have given thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions, perused the impugned judgment and gone through the material on record. 7. Sub-Divisional Officer Navalgarh has rejected the application of section 136 of the Act mainly on the grounds that the dispute under consideration is neither a clerical error nor an error on which both the parties agree to have been committed, nor any error detected during any inspection of the land record. It is also stated by the Sub-Divisional Officer that the `rasta' shown in the map through dotted lines in khasra No. 74 is sought to be shifted without impleading the khatedar tenant of khasra No. 74. This impugned order of Sub-Divisional Officer has been set aside by the Divisional Commissioner by his judgment dated 10.3.05. Divisional Commissioner has remitted the case for re-hearing and re-decision to Sub-Divisional Officer who has been directed to take action under rule 369 of the Rules of 1957 for correction of the map. This impugned order of Sub-Divisional Officer has been set aside by the Divisional Commissioner by his judgment dated 10.3.05. Divisional Commissioner has remitted the case for re-hearing and re-decision to Sub-Divisional Officer who has been directed to take action under rule 369 of the Rules of 1957 for correction of the map. The moot point before me for decision is whether the disputed matter with regard to shifting of the `rasta' from khasra No. 74 to khasra No. 72 and 73 falls within the purview of section 136 of the Act and whether the Sub-Divisional Officer is competent to shift the `rasta' from khasra No. 74 and create a new `rasta'in khasra numbers 72 and 73, or not. 8. Section 136 of the Act for the sake of ready reference is reproduced below:- "Section 136 [Correction of error] -The Land Records Officer may, at any time, correct or cause to be corrected in the prescribed manner any clerical errors and any errors which the parties interested admit to have been made in the record of rights or register, or which a Revenue Officer may notice during the course of his inspection in any Register: Provided that when any error is noticed by a Revenue Officer in any record of rights during the course of his inspection, no error shall be corrected unless a notice to show cause has been given to the parties]" Bare perusal of the above provision makes it abundantly clear that only such errors can be corrected under Section 136 of the Act which are of the nature of clerical error or such error to which both the parties admit to have been made or which is detected during the course of inspection in any register. The matter in dispute comes in none of the above cited categories. It is a dispute about re-location and re-depiction of the `rasta' from khasra No. 74 to khasra No. 72 and 73.The opposite parties not only do not agree to this proposition but both the parties are fighting tooth-and-nail pro and against the proposition. Thus, the matter does not fall within the purview of section 136 of the act. 9. Now it is to be examined whether Sub-Divisional Officer is competent to show and depict the `rasta' shifting its position as prayed by the respondents-applicants, under rule 369 of the Rules of 1957. Thus, the matter does not fall within the purview of section 136 of the act. 9. Now it is to be examined whether Sub-Divisional Officer is competent to show and depict the `rasta' shifting its position as prayed by the respondents-applicants, under rule 369 of the Rules of 1957. Rules 369 of the Rules of 1957 enumerates duties of Sub-Divisional Officer; this rule is reproduced below:- "Rule 369- Duties of Sub-Divisional Officers-The Sub-Divisional Officer shares with the Collector, but subject to his control, responsibility for the correct maintenance of the maps and records of his Sub-Division. He is empowered to order alterations and all disputed cases of mutations, transfer and changes come before him. Besides exercising supervision of the staff, therefore, he should be particularly careful to see that the orders passed are clear and precise and they are carried out. The duties of the Sub-Division Officer in connection with the land records, apart from those he has to perform in his judicial capacity, fall under the following heads:- 1. Discipline of Patwaris and Inspectors. 2. Inspection of village maps and records. 3. Inspection of office Qanungo's office. 4. Maintenance of boundary and survey marks; and 5. Registration of improvements effected by estate holders." The above cited rule prescribes duties of Sub-Divisional Officer, inter alia, about the correct maintenance of maps and records of his Sub-Division. Nowhere does it authorises Sub-Divisional Officer for correction in the map; 'the correct maintenance of the maps' does not mean correction in the map. Changes in revenue maps are made during the course of settlement through the laid down procedure during the survey and settlement operations. A revenue map cannot be casually and arbitrarily changed by Sub-Divisional Officer. Thus, the direction given by Divisional Commissi-oner Jaipur to Sub-Divisional Officer Navalgarh to take action towards correction of the map u/Rule 369 of the Rules of 1957 is not only contrary to the given provision of the Rules of 1957 but is against the provision of the Act as contained in Sec. 136 of the Act. The impugned judgment of the Divisional Commissioner Jaipur, therefore, does not sustain. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment dated 10.3.05 of Divisional Commissioner Jaipur is set aside and the judgment dated 22.1.04 of Sub-Divisional Officer Navalgarh is upheld. Pronounced.