Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1000 (RAJ)

Saroj v. State of Rajasthan

2012-04-19

GOVIND MATHUR

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. - By this petition for writ validity, propriety and correctness of the judgment dated 24.11.2011, passed by the Board of Revenue Rajasthan, Ajmer, setting aside the judgment dated 30.6.2009, passed by learned Additional Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner, is called in question. 2. The factual matrix necessary to be noticed is that Late Shri Teeku Singh son of Shri Bheekha was having 34 bighas of land under-his tenancy situated in murabba No. 178/33, 178/25, 178/25 and 178/34 in village Chak 11BSM. The land aforesaid was mutated in name of Shri Udai Singh on 9.9.1991 after death of his father Shri Teeku Singh. Shri Udai Singh sold the land aforesaid to Shri Vijay Kumar son of Balchand, Smt. Pushpa Devi wife of Balchand and Smt. Santosh Devi wife of Manak Chand through a registered sale deed on 16.11.1991. Acting upon the sale deed aforesaid a mutation was made in favour of above named Vijay Kumar, Pushpa Devi and Santosh Devi on 3.1.1992. Pertinent to notice here that widow of Late Shri Teeku Singh and his four daughters being aggrieved by the mutation made in favour of Udai Singh preferred an appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer (North), Bikaner as per the provisions of Section 75 of the Land Revenue Act, 1956. During pendency of the said appeal the land was sold by Shri Vijay Kumar, Smt. Pushpa Devi and Smt. Santosh Devi to the petitioners through a registered sale deed on 27.3.1998. As a consequent to the sale so made mutations were also sanctioned in the name of the petitioners and they were recorded as Khatedars of the land in question. The respondents No. 4 to 8 challenged these mutation entries also by way of filing three appeals bearing Nos. 18/1998, 49/1998 and 51/1998 before the Sub Divisional Officer (North) Bikaner. The Sub-Divisional Officer (North) Bikaner on 6.3.2007 passed the following order: " 6-3-2007 odhy vihykaV Jh d.kZ flag raoj mi0A jsLiksMsUVl dh rych ugha djkbZ gSA bl izdj.k esa ewy vihy 30@1991] uSuk nsoh cuke~ LVsV o mn;flag] dh i=koyh esa mDr vihy lekfgr dh tkrh gSA i=koyh bl dnj Qslyk gksdj ewy vihy jgsA " 3. In view of the order aforesaid the appeals bearing Nos. 48/1998, 49/1998 and 51/1998 were amalgamated with the original appeal No. 30/1991, Nena Devi v. State & Udai Singh , giving challenge to the mutation entries made in favour of Shri Udai Singh. In view of the order aforesaid the appeals bearing Nos. 48/1998, 49/1998 and 51/1998 were amalgamated with the original appeal No. 30/1991, Nena Devi v. State & Udai Singh , giving challenge to the mutation entries made in favour of Shri Udai Singh. The appeal No. 30/1991 came to be accepted on 19.9.2008 by 'lie Sub Divisional Officer (North), Bikaner, accordingly the mutation entry made in favour of Udai Singh was quashed and the matter was remanded to the Tehsildar, Bikaner with a direction to decided the matter afresh after providing an opportunity of hearing to other heirs of Late Shri Teeku Singh. While accepting he appeal No. 30/1991 the petitioners were not called upon for hearing of the use who were party to the proceedings in appeals Nos. 48/1998, 49/1998 and 51/1998 which were amalgamated with appeal No. 30/1991 under the order dated 5.3.2007. To challenge the order dated 19.9.2008 the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner that came, to be disposed of on 30.6.2009 by quashing the order dated 19.9.2008 and the sequential entries made in revenue record. A direction to the Sub Divisional Officer was also given to hear and decide the appeal No. 30/1991 alongwith appeals Nos. 48/1998, 49/1998 and 51/1998 by providing an opportunity of Tearing to the petitioners also. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner dated 30.6.2009 the respondents No. 4 to 8 preferred a revision petition before the Board of Revenue with assertion that the appeals Nos. 48/1998, 49/1998 and 51/1998 came to be disposed of by the order dated 6.3.2007, therefore, no occasion was there for their rehearing. The Board of Revenue by the judgment impugned dated 24.11.2011 accepted the revision petition and set aside the order dated 30.6.2009, as such the order dated 19.9.2008 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (North), Bikaner came to be restored. 4. While challenging the order passed by the Board of Revenue the argument advanced by Shri Vijay Bishnoi, counsel for the petitioners, is that vide the order dated 6.3.2007 the Sub Divisional Officer (North), Bikaner amalgamated the appeals Nos. 48/1998, 49/1998 and 51/1998 with appeal No. 30/1991. Meaning thereby, hearing of all the four appeals was to take place collectively. According to learned counsel the order dated 6.3.2007 is not having effect of final disposal of appeals Nos. 48/1998, 49/1998 and 51/1998 with appeal No. 30/1991. Meaning thereby, hearing of all the four appeals was to take place collectively. According to learned counsel the order dated 6.3.2007 is not having effect of final disposal of appeals Nos. 48/1998, 49/1998 and 51/1998 but of their amalgamation with appeal No. 30/1991. 5. Per contra, it is submitted by learned counsel for the respondents No. 4 to 8 that vide the order dated 6.3.2007 the appeals preferred by the petitioners were disposed of and their fate was made accomplish with the result of appeal No. 30/1991. As such, there was no need to give any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, the appellants in appeals Nos. 48/1998, 49/1998 and 51/1998. 6. Heard counsel for the parties. 7. Precisely, the entire controversy rests upon the term "Samahit" used in the order dated 6.3.2007. The term "Samahit" means "inclusion". Meaning thereby, vide the order dated 6.3.2007 the Sub Divisional Officer (North), Bikaner included the appeals Nos. 48/1998, 49/1998 and 51/1998 with appeal No. 30/1991. Pertinent to note here that no order on merits was passed in the appeals Nos. 48/1998, 49/1998 and 51/1998 which were included in appeal No. 30/1991. As such, the effect of the order dated 6.3.2007 is nothing but collective hearing of all the four appeals. The meaning of the term "Samahit" as advanced by counsel for the respondents No. 4 to 8 as a matter of fact shall frustrate the purpose of passing the order dated 6.3.2007 which intends for simultaneous and common hearing in all cases as the issue involved is highly interlinked. If the interpretation of the order dated 6.3.2007 as made by the Sub Divisional Officer (North), Bikaner and as accepted by the Board of Revenue under the order impugned be maintained, then rights of the petitioners shall certainly be adversely effected without affording any opportunity of hearing to them. As such the only reasonable interpretation of the terms of the order dated 6.3.2007 is that all the appeals were to be heard together by the Sub Divisional Officer (North). Bikaner by affording hearing to all the parties. The Additional Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner, thus, rightly directed to decide the question of mutation by affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioners also, who are respondents in appeals Nos. 48/1998, 49/1998 and 51/1998. 8. In view of the discussions made above, this petition for writ deserves acceptance. Bikaner by affording hearing to all the parties. The Additional Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner, thus, rightly directed to decide the question of mutation by affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioners also, who are respondents in appeals Nos. 48/1998, 49/1998 and 51/1998. 8. In view of the discussions made above, this petition for writ deserves acceptance. Accordingly, the same is allowed. The impugned order dated 24.11.2011 passed by the Board of Revenue is set aside. The order dated 30.6.2009 passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner is restored. Compliance of the same is required to be made expeditiously as far as possible on or before 31.8.2012.No order as to costs.Petition allowed. *******