Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 558 (RAJ)

Veer Singh v. Board of Revenue

2011-03-14

MAHESH BHAGWATI

body2011
Hon'ble BHAGWATI, J.—By way of instant writ petition, the petitioners have implored to set aside the judgment dated 12th June, 2001, judgment dated 6th August, 2001 and judgment dated 2nd July, 2008 rendered by Assistant Collector, Head Quarter Jhunjhunu, Revenue Appellate Authority, Sikar Camp Junjhunu and Board of Revenue, Ajmer respectively. 2. Contextual facts of the case depict that Smt. Kesar and others filed a Civil Suit against Chandgi Ram and Hanuman in the Court of Assistant Collector, Jhunjhunu under Sections 88/91 and 92-A/188 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act mentioning therein that agricultural land ad-measuring Rakba 25 Bigha 14 Biswa situated in Khasra No. 71 of Village Roop Pura, Tehsil Chirawa was recorded in the name of Hanuta Ram. Hanuta Ram died leaving behind three daughters namely Kesar, Sara and Mungi and one son Chandgi Ram. It is averred that after marriage Smt. Kesar widowed, as such she was cultivating the agricultural land along with her father. After the death of Hanuta Ram, aforesaid agricultural land was mutated in the name of Chandgi Ram on 14.6.1964, whereas the property being the co-parcenery property, the plaintiffs were also having share in the disputed agricultural land. It was further averred that one Hanuman took the undue benefit of dupeness of Chandgi Ram and purchased the entire land for a sale consideration of Rs. 9000/- by way of a registered sale deed dated 18.2.1969. The plaintiffs implored the Court that since they were the co-tenant of 3/4th share of co-parcenery property, after the death of Chandgi Ram, they be declared the co-tenant of the entire land situated in khasra No. 71 and sale deeds executed from time to time be declared null and void and permanent injunction be issued to the effect that the defendants shall not interfere with the cultivatory possession of the plaintiffs. 3. The defendants filed the reply to the said suit contending therein that all the three plaintiffs had already married and they were residing on their in-laws house. Death of original tenant took place 15-16 years ago and Chandgi Ram was his sole survivor. He was cultivating the said land along with his father during his life time. After the death of Hanuta Ram, the plaintiffs had never been in possession of the land in question, on the contrary, Chandgi Ram was having the cultivatory possession over the disputed land. He was cultivating the said land along with his father during his life time. After the death of Hanuta Ram, the plaintiffs had never been in possession of the land in question, on the contrary, Chandgi Ram was having the cultivatory possession over the disputed land. In the last, it was prayed that the suit filed by the plaintiffs be dismissed. 4. It is relevant to record that during the pendency of the suit, Chandgi Ram sold the land in question to Hanuman, Ratan Singh, Ummed Singh and Amar Singh vide sale deed dated 18.2.1969, who sold the aforesaid land to Leela Ram, Satpal, Inder Raj Singh, Hansraj and Mal Singh vide sale deed dated 5.6.1969. Thereafter, the land in question was sold from time to time vide sale deeds dated 27.7.1983, 26.7.1998 and 30.10.1999. It is further relevant to record that Chandgi Ram did not marry and during the pendency of the suit, he expired intestate, as such his legal heirs were the present plaintiffs. 5. The learned Trial Court, vide its judgment dated 12th June, 2001, decreed the suit of the plaintiffs and declared them to be the recorded tenant of 3/4th share of the agricultural land and being the legal heirs of deceased Chandgi Ram, recorded tenant of his 1/4th share of the land ad-measuring Rakba 25 Bigha 14 Biswa situated in Khasra No. 71 of Village Roop pura, Tehsil Chirawa. The learned Trial Court also declared the sale deeds executed in this case from time to time as null and void; the plaintiffs as khatedar tenant having equal shares of the aforesaid land and directed that the possession be handed over to the plaintiffs and restrained the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiffs and not to create any hindrance in the use thereof. 6. Aggrieved with this order, the defendants filed an appeal which came to be adjudicated vide judgment dated 6th August, 2001 by the Revenue Appellate Authority whereby the learned Revenue Appellate Authority, having analyzed the matter in detail, modified the judgment of the Trial Court and held the plaintiffs to be the recorded tenant of 3/4th portion of the disputed land. Aggrieved with this order, the defendants filed an appeal which came to be adjudicated vide judgment dated 6th August, 2001 by the Revenue Appellate Authority whereby the learned Revenue Appellate Authority, having analyzed the matter in detail, modified the judgment of the Trial Court and held the plaintiffs to be the recorded tenant of 3/4th portion of the disputed land. While observing that the Chandgi Ram being the recorded tenant of 1/4th share of the disputed land, it was held by the RAA that he was entitled to sell his part of land only and the sale deeds so far as 1/4th part of the land belonging to Chandgi Ram is concerned, are valid and effective. The learned RAA declared the appellants to be the recorded tenants of 1/4th part of the land to the extent of share of Chandgi Ram. Dissatisfied with this order also, the defendants respondents as well as plaintiffs filed two appeals under Section 224 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 before the Board of Revenue which stood dismissed vide order dated 2nd July, 2008 and the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority was affirmed. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record including the impugned judgments. 8. Having considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, it is noticed that in the case of Smt. Geeta Devi vs. State of Rajasthan reported in RRD.1979 page 208, this Court held that under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1955, daughters were also entitled to inherit property of their father. 9. Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (here-in-after referred to "Act of 1956") deals with the General Rules of succession in the case of males. It provides thus: "The property of a male Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the provisions of this Chapter- (a) firstly, upon the heirs, being the relatives specified in class 1 of the Schedule. (b).... It provides thus: "The property of a male Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the provisions of this Chapter- (a) firstly, upon the heirs, being the relatives specified in class 1 of the Schedule. (b).... (c)....." Schedule I appended with the Act of 1956 envisages the relatives, of the person, who dies intestate, which includes son, daughter, widow, mother son of a pre-deceased son, daughter of a pre-deceased son, son of a pre-deceased daughter, daughter of a pre-deceased daughter, widow of a pre-deceased son, son of pre-deceased son of a pre-deceased son, daughter of a pre-deceased son of a pre-deceased son, widow of a pre-deceased son of a pre-deceased son. In the instant case, since Hanuta Ram died intestate, therefore, as per the provisions of Section 8 of the Act of 1956 and the Schedule I appended with the Act, the property devolved on the plaintiffs and Chandgi Ram being the legal heir of deceased Hanuta Ram, but Chandgi Ram, sans there being any partition of the co-parcenary property, sold the entire land and got the sale consideration. Since the plaintiffs were the co-parcener in the joint property, they were entitled to be given 3/4th share. The learned Courts below having critically analyzed the matter in detail, rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiffs. 10.This Court in the case of Jagan Singh vs. Chotey Lal reported in WLN 1973 Part I 654, held that the suit for declaration the sale-deed in respect of agriculture property is ab-initio void and suit shall lie in Revenue Court. 11. In the case of Rooda Ram & Others vs. Rattu Ram and Another reported in WLN 1972 Part I 323, it has been held that suit seeking vindication of khatedari rights and collateral points is triable by a Revenue Court. 12. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the suit was triable by the Civil Court and not by the Revenue Court, as such the Revenue Court erred while entertaining the suit and thus, the impugned judgments passed by the Courts below needs to be set-aside and the matter deserves to be tried by the Civil Court. 13. 13. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act provides that all suits and application of the nature specified in the III Schedule shall be heard and determined by the Revenue Court and no Court, other than the Revenue Court, shall take cognizance of any such suit or application or of any suit or application based on a cause of action in respect of which any relief could be obtained by means of such suit or application. Further, Section 88 of the Act deals with the suit for declaration of the rights as a co-tenant or his share in the joint tenancy, a tenant of Khudkasht and a Sub-tenant in an agricultural land. Section 92-A of the Act deals with the suits for injunction. In the instant case, the suit was filed under Sections 88/91, 92-A/188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act for declaring the plaintiffs to be the owner of co-parcenary property and injunction. Thus, the stand taken by the petitioners is not found to be sustainable and the same deserves to be outrightly rejected. 14. In the instant case, the writ petition is found to have been filed under Articles 226 readwith 227 of the Constitution of India. 15. It is relevant to record that Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not intended to circumvent statutory procedures. Hence, where statutory alternative remedies are available, a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not normally entertained, unless the statutory alternative remedy is availed. The High Court should interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India only in very exceptional cases such as where the challenge is to the validity of statutory provisions or where the authorities are not passing order thereby refusing to exercise their jurisdiction or where the proceedings are ab initio void or are perverse or are for want of jurisdiction or taken in defiance of law. Similarly, on the point of Article 227 of the Constitution, the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in the case of Sheonath vs. State of Rajasthan & Others reported in 2007(1) WLC 289, has held that High Court cannot act as Appellate Court over the decision of Revenue Board. In this view of the matter too, the writ petition is found not to be maintainable and the same deserves to be dismissed. In this view of the matter too, the writ petition is found not to be maintainable and the same deserves to be dismissed. Otherwise too, there has been a concurrent finding of all the three Courts below and I find no cogent reason to interfere with the same. 16. For the reasons stated above, I don't find any substance in the writ petition and the same being devoid of any merit deserves to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly.