Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 773 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. LRs. of Jethuji

2010-04-06

RAGHUVENDRA S.RATHORE

body2010
Hon'ble RATHORE, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition is directed against the judgment dated 7.7.2000 (Annexure 05) passed by the learned Board of Revenue, order dated 17.7.1995 passed by the District Collector, Jodhpur (Annexure 2) and the order dated 24.6.1996 (Annexure 3) passed by the learned Collector in review application. 3. The brief facts of the case are that in respect of khasra No. 632, Mutation No. 519 was entitled into by the authorities concerned on 21.8.1986. It was in the year 1994 that an application for reference under Section 82 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act (wrongly mentioned Section 75 in the order of the learned Collector) was filed by the Tehsildar, Jodhpur. On the said reference application of reference by a detailed order, after considering of reference by a detailed order. After considering material facts of the case and contentions raised by both the parties, learned Collector gave his finding and the relevant extract is reproduced hereunder: ^^jktLo vfHkys[k ds vuqlkj fookfnr Hkwfe oDr cspku fdLe ch futh Hkwfe Fkh vr% jktLFkku dk'rdkjh vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 16 rc izHkkoh ekuh tkrh tc ;g Hkwfe xkspj ntZ gksrh vFkok fof/kor xkspj ?kksf"kr dh tkrhA blds vfrfjDr Hkwfe vokfIr vf/kdkjh tks/kiqj us Hkh vizkFkhZx.k dh Hkwfe ekurs gq, rFkk [kkrsnkj Hkwfe ekurs gq, vokIr dh xbZ Hkwfe vokfIr eqvkots ds Hkqxrku ckcr vkns'k fn;k gS tks 'ks"k Hkwfe ch 4 ekurs gq, lsuk foHkkx ds v/khu vkt Hkh fo|eku gS ftlds eqvkots dk Hkqxrku vizkFkhZx.k dks fd;k x;k gSA ;fn ;g Hkwfe xkspj gksrh rks vizkFkhZx.k dks eqvkots dk Hkqxrku Hkh ugha fd;k tk ldrk FkkA fdUrq eqvkots dk Hkqxrku vizkFkhZx.k dks d`f"k Hkwfe ekurs gq, fd;k gSA jktLFkku dk'rdkjh vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 5¼28½ ds vUrxZr lkoZtfud xkspj Hkwfe ?kksf"kr djus dk izko/kku gS fdUrq ;g fu;e bl futh Hkwfe ij vf/kxzfgr fd;s fcuk ykxw ugha gksrs gSa] D;ksafd ;g futh Hkwfe fdLe ch 4 dh gS o fof/kor [kjhn dh xbZ gS bu Øsrkvksa ds d`f"k vf/kdkj rc rd lekIr ugha gks ldrs tc rd ;g Hkwfe fdlh vU; iz;kstukFkZ vf/kxzfgr ugha dh tkrh fu;ekuqlkj xkspj ?kksf"kr ugha dh tkrhA ;g Hkwfe vizkFkhZx.k dh futh Hkwfe gS tks vc rd vf/kxzfgr ugha dh xbZ gS] vr% fcuk vokfIr fd;s futh d`f"k Hkwfe dks xkspj ?kksf"kr ugha fd;k tk ldrkA** 4. Thereafter, learned Tehsildar moved an application before the learned Collector for review of the order dated 17.7.1995. The said review application came to be rejected by the learned Collector on 24.7.1996 (Annexure 3). Thereafter petitioner State, through Tehsildar, Jodhpur challenged the order of the learned Collector before the learned Board of Revenue by filling an application under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956. The learned Board of Revenue considered every and each aspect of the matter and held that Mutation No. 519 dated 21.8.1986 was entered into in respect of the sale which took place in the year 1964. On the basis of the sale, three different mutations were entered and the other two were viz 601, 655. None of the mutations were challenged by way of appeal, in accordance to the remedy provided under law. It was also held by the learned Board of Revenue that in land acquisition proceedings, notice under Section 7 were issued in the year 1967 but no objections were filed, and therefore, it raises question mark in respect of title of the petitioner. The acquisition proceedings were challenged in the revenue Court and that was rejected. Thereafter compensation in accordance with law was paid to the khatedars. Out of the total area of land, 1909 bighas was acquired earlier and remaining 629 bighas was being cultivated by 30 persons continuously since thereafter. In the instant case no legal action was taken since the years 1964 and there had been no satisfactory explanation in respect of it. 5. The learned Board held that three consecutive reference proceedings were rejected by the District Collector and District Land Record Officer, the first proceedings was taken upto 17.7.1995, thereafter on 24.6.1996 and the present one, is third in number. Instant proceedings were taken up after 36 years of the sale which had taken place in the year 1964. In view of the fact that neither mutation was challenged by way of appeal nor the sale was challenged before the competent Court and earlier references were also rejected, the learned Board of Revenue held that proceedings under Section 9 of the Land Revenue Act are not in accordance with law and there is no valid reason for the same. In view of the fact that neither mutation was challenged by way of appeal nor the sale was challenged before the competent Court and earlier references were also rejected, the learned Board of Revenue held that proceedings under Section 9 of the Land Revenue Act are not in accordance with law and there is no valid reason for the same. It was also held that application under Section 9 was not filed after full exercise and detailed enquiry in respect of the record nor it was done by taking into consideration the record of the acquisition etc. Competently, it was held that in view of the reasons mentioned in the order, the application deserves to be rejected. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has sought to challenge impugned orders, primarily on the ground that the land in question could not have been sold in the year 1964 as the same had vested in the Govt. Further, he has tried to justify the action of the State by filing an application for reference after more that three decades. It has also been submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that there is no limitation prescribed in respect of application under Section 82 of the Land Revenue Act and law is well settled that it can be done within a reasonable period of time. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has not only supported the orders passed by the learned Collector as well as Member of Board of Revenue that the same do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. He has also submitted that in respect of this very land of khasra No. 632, earlier litigation has been initiated by the co-tenant and the same has been decided in favour of the tenants up to the Division Bench of this Court. In the said case, the petitioner and other had sought to challenge the validity of the notice dated 19.111975 issued by the Collector, Jodhpur under Section 9-A of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Acquisition of Land Owners Estate Act, 1963 for acquisition of the land falling in khasra No. 632. In the said case, the petitioner and other had sought to challenge the validity of the notice dated 19.111975 issued by the Collector, Jodhpur under Section 9-A of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Acquisition of Land Owners Estate Act, 1963 for acquisition of the land falling in khasra No. 632. The learned Single Judge had held that as per Section 6(1) of the Act of 1963, a person shall be deemed to be khatedar tenant of land holding from land holder of the estate even if he has not been entered in the revenue record as khudkast tenant. For accrual of khatedari rights, it is open to a person to show that he, in fact, is tenant of khudkasht even though he has not been entered as tenant of khudkasht in revenue record. The said judgment was passed by the learned single Judge in S.B.C. Writ Petition No. 1853/1975 (Kunwar Jaswant Singh vs. State) on 4.1.1985. The order of the learned Single Judge was upheld by the learned Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 286/1985 State of Rajasthan vs. Jaswant Singh. 8. The respondents as well as Jaswant Singh and others were in possession of various portions of khasra No. 632 as tenants of the land owners i.e. ex-ruler of the State of Jodhpur, at the time of commencement of the Act i.e. 6.4.1964. 9. The learned counsel for the respondents has also made reference to the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Adhunik Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti Ltd. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. inter alia observed that as per Section 2(f), the ex-ruler shall not fall within definition of `land' and shall not be vested in the State under the Act of 1963 as the land in question is `abadi' land irrespective of the fact that class of land is agriculture. The land in question of khasra No. 632 fall within the abadi area of Jodhpur, hence, it is not `land'. Therefore, Act of 1963 is not applicable. Besides this, land of khasra No. 632 fall under category C which is falling within the boundaries of Ratanada Palace. Hence, not `land' as defined under Section 2(f) of the Act. 10. The land in question of khasra No. 632 fall within the abadi area of Jodhpur, hence, it is not `land'. Therefore, Act of 1963 is not applicable. Besides this, land of khasra No. 632 fall under category C which is falling within the boundaries of Ratanada Palace. Hence, not `land' as defined under Section 2(f) of the Act. 10. On having given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the counsel for the rival parties as well as facts and circumstances of the case, and on careful perusal of the orders impugned, I am of the considered opinion that this writ petition has no force. A look to the order passed by the learned Collector, goes to show that it has taken into consideration all facts in detail including the earlier events and had come to the conclusion that land in question, which was in possession of the respondents since 15.10.1955, was not a land vested in the Government. Further he has observed that very officer i.e. Tehsildar, Jodhpur had, subsequent to mutation in question opened another mutation No. 655 dated 14.6.1994. In order words, in the instant case application of reference filed by the Tehsildar was contrary to his own stand. Of course, so far as order dated 24.6.1996 is concerned there is no error in the same and the learned Collector has rightly rejected the review application which was not even maintainable. Likewise the learned Board of Revenue has considered in details and given reasons, more than one from para No. 14 onwards, and came to the conclusion that application under Section 9 of the Act deserves to be dismissed. 11. So far as the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that when there is no limitation prescribed in a given case then proceedings can be initiated within a reasonable period. In support of his case he has placed reliance in the case of Tehal Singh vs. Chhail Singh & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2008 WLC (Rajasthan) UC 733. There cannot by any quarrel to the proposition that when there is no limitation prescribed under the law then action is to be initiated within a reasonable time. One cannot lose sight of the fact that in the instant case action has been taken after 36 years. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2008 WLC (Rajasthan) UC 733. There cannot by any quarrel to the proposition that when there is no limitation prescribed under the law then action is to be initiated within a reasonable time. One cannot lose sight of the fact that in the instant case action has been taken after 36 years. Moreover, earlier on two occasions similar steps of initiating reference had already been rejected by the authority. It is settled principle of law that proceedings under Section 82 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act ought to have been initiated at the earliest point of time and it should be reasonable one from the date of issuance of the order under challenge. It has been so held in the case of Anandilal vs. State of Rajasthan, 1996 RRD 170 and in the case of Lad Bai vs. Board of Revenue, 2000 RRD 52. Last in the series of cases is that of Smt. Suneheri vs. State of Rajasthan CW 922/2000, decided by this Court on 15.10.2009 (2010 RRD 260). It is well established that inordinate delay in initiating proceedings under Section 82 of the Land Revenue Act, undisputedly fatal and unlimited period cannot be justified for taking such proceedings. 12. It is pertinent to note here, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents that proceedings in respect of co-tenant of this very land i.e. khasra No. 632 has already been concluded earlier, as referred above. 13. Therefore, taking into consideration the over all facts and circumstances of the case, the inordinate delay in initiating proceedings in the instant case under Section 82 of the Land Revenue Act and earlier proceedings, under the same provision, in respect of same land had been rejected on the merits upto Division Bench of this Court wherein it had been held that the land in question does not fall within the definition of land as under Section 2(f) of the Act of 1963, therefore, there is no question of land having been vested in the State Government. I do not find any illegality in the orders passed by the learned Courts below so as to call for any interference by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction/supervisory powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.