Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1886 (RAJ)

Amar Singh through L. Rs. v. State of Rajasthan

2011-09-02

A.M.SAPRE, NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN

body2011
Hon'ble SAPRE, J.—This is an intra Court appeal filed by the writ petitioners of W.P. No. 3912 of 1996 under Rule 134 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules against an order dated 18.2.2009 passed by Single Judge in aforementioned writ petition. 2. By impugned order, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellants and in consequence, upheld the order of Board of Revenue. 3. So the question, which arises for consideration in this appeal, is whether learned Single Judge was justified in dismissing the appellant's writ petition thereby justified in upholding the order of Board of Revenue? 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants and on perusal of the record of the case, we find no substance in the appeal and hence we are inclined to dismiss the appeal. In other words, the reasoning and conclusion of the learned Single Judge is just, legal and proper calling no interference. 5. Since the issue in question was exhaustively dealt with by the Single Judge in the impugned order and further when we are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge and hence we do not consider it necessary to burden our order by narrating the entire actual controversy in great detail except to the extent necessary. 6. The dispute relates to agricultural ceiling in relation of land belonging to one Amar Singh (writ petition No. 1) under the provisions of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 and Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act (for short called "Ceiling Act") measuring 186 bighas and 17 biswas situated in District Rajsamand. 7. Consequent upon coming into force the Ceiling Act, the issue in relation to extent of holding of land recorded in the name of Amar Singh was taken up by the authorities. The contention of Amar Singh was that he having transferred 34 bighas 15 biswas of land to his brother Jodh Singh (writ petitioner No. 2), it cannot be now included in his holding while determining his share in the entire holding. This plea was negatived by the Collector and then by Board of Revenue. It was held that when since inception the property (entire holding) stood recorded exclusively in the name of Amar Singh, the transaction in question between the two brothers cannot be held legal. This plea was negatived by the Collector and then by Board of Revenue. It was held that when since inception the property (entire holding) stood recorded exclusively in the name of Amar Singh, the transaction in question between the two brothers cannot be held legal. It was held that petitioner No. 2 Jodh Singh never asserted his right at an appropriate stage and nor there is any evidence to hold him owner of the part of the holding as contended. It was held that the land in question must be held to have owned by Amar Singh and accordingly it be treated as his property. 8. It is these orders which were challenged by both Amar Singh and Jodh Singh in the writ petition out of which this appeal arises. By impugned order, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition and upheld the orders of the Revenue Authorities giving rise to its challenge in this appeal. 9. In our considered view, when all the three Courts i.e. Collector, Board of Revenue and Writ Court have consistently held that land in question was that of Amar Singh because it continued to be so recorded in his exclusive name since inception, such finding being of fact, the same cannot be interfered with by this Court. It is binding on this Court. It is apart from the fact that it is neither against any evidence nor against any provision of law and nor it is such that no judicial man of average capacity cannot record. In other words, the finding is such that it is capable of being recorded on the material on record and was accordingly recorded. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant, however, contended that proceedings in question were reopened after long lapse of time and there was no jurisdiction for the delay. We find no merit in this submission. In our opinion it is a technical plea and depends upon facts of each case. The issue was dealt with by the Courts below and it was found to be of no substance. We thus, concur with the view of the Courts below on this issue and reject this submission. 11. Coming to the last issue. It is a case where the alleged transfer was being relied on for avoiding the clutches of ceiling laws. The issue was dealt with by the Courts below and it was found to be of no substance. We thus, concur with the view of the Courts below on this issue and reject this submission. 11. Coming to the last issue. It is a case where the alleged transfer was being relied on for avoiding the clutches of ceiling laws. Since we have upheld the transfer on facts, no mere discussion is called for on this issue. 12. As a consequence of foregoing discussion, the appeal is found to be devoid of any merit. It fails and is accordingly dismissed.