Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1103 (RAJ)

Badu Lal Yadav v. State of Rajasthan

2012-05-02

ALOK SHARMA

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. - By this petition the petitioner has sought quashing of the order dated 29.12.2005 passed by the Revenue Minister, Government of Rajasthan, where under it has been held that in view of a valid allotment having been made to the predecessor in interest of the respondent No. 4 in respect of the land comprised in old Khasra No. 1956 (new Khasra Nos. 3520, 3521, 3522, 3528, 3529 and 3530) ad-measuring 3 big has in village Ringus, district Sikar and further in view of the judgments of the various Civil and Revenue Courts upholding the allotment made to the erstwhile Khatedar Sita Ram Kabra, predecessor in interest of respondent No. 4, where-upon the erstwhile allottee and his successors in interest were in possession of the said parcel of the land, the order dated 21.3.2005 passed by the Collector, Sikar as amended on 29.3.2005 as also the Revenue Minister’s earlier order dated 7.12.1983 were liable to be set aside. 2. The facts of the case are that a parcel of land bearing Khasra No. 1956/1 (new Khasra Nos. 3520, 3521. 3522, 3528, 3529 and 3530) in village Ringus District Sikar was allotted to Sita Ram Kabra on or about 20.4.1968 and possession thereof taken by the allottee. At the time of allotment of land to Sita Ram Kabra the lands aforesaid were recorded as ‘Barani’ as per the revenue record of Samvat. 2010-2027. Subsequent to the allotment, Sita Ram Kabra transferred half share of land falling in Khasra No. 1956 i.e. half of 3 big has of land to his brother Shiv Bhagwan by way of a registered gift deed in 1970. Sita Ram Kabra died in 1972. It however appears that on or about 29.4.1971 a revision petition had come to be filed by one Hanuman and others against the order of allotment dated 20.4.1968 in favour of Sita Ram Kabra. Sita Ram Kabra died in 1972. It however appears that on or about 29.4.1971 a revision petition had come to be filed by one Hanuman and others against the order of allotment dated 20.4.1968 in favour of Sita Ram Kabra. It is on record that Sita Ram Kabra was not served and in spite of his death in 1972, without substitution of his legal heirs, on 7.12.1983 an ex parte order came to be passed by then Revenue Minister, holding that even though the revision petitioners were not entitled to regularisation of their old alleged possession as claimed over Khasra No. 1956 in village Ringus, district Sikar, yet in view of they being khatedars of the land falling in Khasra No. 1957 purported only accessed through Khasra No. 1956 they be allowed the right of way over the said Khasra and the width of the access through Khasra No. 1956 be determined by the District Collector, Sikar. It was directed that apart from the way thus provided to the revision petitioners Hanuman and others the remainder of Khasra No. 1956 be reverted in the revenue record as Charagah. 3. Shiv Bhagwan the brother of erstwhile Khatedar allottee Sita Ram Kabra, to whom half of 3 bighas in Khasra No. 1956 had been gifted in 1970, i on coming to know of the ex parte order dated 7.12.1983 against Sita Ram Kabra and without inasmuch as impleading him in spite of registered gift deed in his favour, moved an application before the Revenue Minister on 4.1.1985, whereupon vide order dated 5.1.1985 the Revenue Minister after taking into consideration the fact that Shiv Bhagwan and the other Khatedar i Sita Ram or his legal heirs had no knowledge about the ex parte proceedings and the order dated 7.12.1983, directed that status quo be maintained In spite of his earlier order dated 7.12.1983 and the name of the original khatedar In the revenue records be maintained. Subsequently, the legal representatives of Sita Ram Kabra and Shiv Bhagwan who also, In the mean time appears to I have expired, sold their rights In Khasra No. 1956 situate In village Ringus by two separate sale deeds dated 31.5.1994 and 15.11.1997. Subsequently, the legal representatives of Sita Ram Kabra and Shiv Bhagwan who also, In the mean time appears to I have expired, sold their rights In Khasra No. 1956 situate In village Ringus by two separate sale deeds dated 31.5.1994 and 15.11.1997. Mali Ram and Mohar Singh as vendors came into possession of the said lands following the purchase by two registered sale deeds on the dates referred to above and got mutation done in their own names. 4. It appears that Hanuman, Prabhu Dayal and others thereafter filed various civil and revenue suits before the Courts, the details of which are as under: (i) Civil Suit No. 4/94 before the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Neem-ka-thana, where Hanuman and others were plaintiffs. Temporary: Injunction Application No. 56/94 in the said suit was dismissed on 7.10.1997. Subsequently, the suit before the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Neem-ka-thana was transferred to the Additional District & Sessions Judge No.1, Neem-ka-thana and renumbered as 27/2000 which came to be dismissed on 8.11.2000. No appeal was filed against the judgment and; decree dated 8.11.2000 and the same attained finality. (ii) Hanuman and others took proceedings by way of an another revenue suit before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Neem-ka-thana impleading Tehsildar and the State Government as party. The Temporary Injunction Application No. 15/94 moved in the said suit came to be dismissed on 17.4.2002 and an appeal No. 33/2002 there against before the Revenue Appellate Authority was also dismissed on 3.10.2002. (iii) Mali Ram, the respondent No. 4 herein filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction before the Assistant Collector, Neem-ka-thana. Along with the said suit, Mali Ram moved an application for Temporary injunction being Application (No. 193/94 against Hanuman and others which came to be allowed by the Assistant Collector, Neem-ka-thana on 9.10.2002. An appeal filed by Hanuman and others challenging the order dated 9.10.2002 passed by the Assistant Collector, neem-ka-thana was dismissed by the Revenue Appellate Authority on 18.7.2003. A revision petition against the dismissal of the appeal by the Revenue Appellate Authority vide order dated 18.7.2003 was laid before the Board of Revenue and numbered as 125/2003 but was dismissed by the Board of Revenue on 5.2.2004. A revision petition against the dismissal of the appeal by the Revenue Appellate Authority vide order dated 18.7.2003 was laid before the Board of Revenue and numbered as 125/2003 but was dismissed by the Board of Revenue on 5.2.2004. (iv) Hanuman and others who had initially moved to the Revenue Minister having come a cropper before the Civil and Revenue Courts in the challenge to the allotment of land to Sita Ram Kabra on 20.4.1968 and the rights therein of his successors in interest, one Anandi Lal, Gopi Ram and the petitioner herein laid a suit before the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Ringus. The application for Temporary Injunction numbered as 13/1998 came to be dismissed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ringus on 2.5.2002. A Civil Misc. Appeal laid against the order dated 2.5.2002 also came to be dismissed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge No.1, Sikar on 17.1.2003. Anandi Lal and others challenged the order dated 17.1.2003 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Sikar before this Court in SB Civil Revision Petition No. 213/2003 which also came to be dismissed on 14.10.2003. 5. It appears from the record that following the purchase of the lands in issue by Mali Ram respondent No. 4 and Mohar Singh by registered sale deeds dated 31.5.1994 and 15.11.1997, mutation in the revenue record was entered in the names of Mall Ram and Mohar Singh by the Tehsildar Srlmadhopur under mutation No. 1000 dated 8.5.2002. Anandi Lal Gopi Ram, Kalyan Singh, Guljarl Lal and Babu Lal petitioner herein filed an appeal before the Additional District Collector, Sikar challenging the mutation which was numbered as 11/2002. Vide order dated 25.8.2004, the.Additional District Collector, Sikar took into consideration the fact that mutation was based on duly executed registered sale deeds dated 31.5.1994 and 15.11.1997 and, therefore, was validly made. The Additional District Collector also took into consideration the fact that in civil proceedings the purchasers Mali Ram and Mohar Singh had repeatedly been able to make out a case in their favour. The issue of the land allegedly being Charagah was also considered but decided against the appellants. The Additional District Collector also took into consideration the fact that in civil proceedings the purchasers Mali Ram and Mohar Singh had repeatedly been able to make out a case in their favour. The issue of the land allegedly being Charagah was also considered but decided against the appellants. The Additional District Collector upheld the contention of Mali Ram respondent No. 4 herein and respondent No. 7 in Appeal No. 11/2002 before him that the appellants including Babu Lal (the petitioner herein) had laid the appeal suppressing important facts and that the appeal was absolutely without any legal foundation and liable to be dismissed. So holding, the Additional District Collector upheld the mutation No. 1000 dated 8.5.2002 made by the Tehsildar recording the names of respondent No. 4 herein as also Mohar Singh in respect of khatedari over Khasra No. 1956 (new khasra Nos. 3520, 3521, 3522, 3528, 3529 and 3530). The said order dated 25.8.2004 passed by the Additional District Collector, at no point of time, was put to challenge or otherwise set aside. 6. It appears that despite the Revenue Minister’s order dated 05.01.1985 staying his own earlier order dated 7.12.1983 and the orders of the Civil courts and the revenue courts, more particularly, the order dated 25.8.2004 passed by the Additional District Collector, Sikar in Appeal No. 11/2002 in which the petitioner herein, namely, Babu Lal was a party appellant, Babu Lal Yadav masquerading as an upholder of public interest filed a DB Civil Writ Petition No. 7556/2003. It was alleged in the said writ petition that Charagah land was being misused and the Court in exercise of its salutary power ought to safeguard the same in the public interest for grazing of cattle and preventing the land’s alleged misuse for non-charagah purposes. All antecedent facts were suppressed. On the matter coming up before this Court on 27.1.2005, this Court was pleased to dismiss the writ petition with a direction that the petitioner approach the District Collector Sikar and make an application and in the event such an application were to be made, the District Collector would proceed in accordance with the provisions of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. Following the order dated 27.1.2005 the District Collector Sikar without as much as a formal application being moved by Babulal the petitioner in the said petition (PIL), proceeded to direct that in pursuance of the order dated 7.12.1983 passed by the Revenue Minister and the order passed by the Division Bench in DBCW No. 7556/2003 on 27.1.2005, Khasra No. 1956 (new khasra Nos. 3520, 3521, 3522, 3528, 3529 and 3530) in village Ringus ad-measuring 3 bighas be reclassified from Barani (Sawaichak) to Charagah. The Tehsildar, Srimadhopur was directed to act accordingly. The order dated 21.3.2005 was modified on 29.3.2005 on a minor matter but remained substantially the same. 7. Aggrieved of the order dated 21.3.2005 without as much notice to them and the order having been passed on a complete non-application of mind by the Collector hurriedly without regard to the facts of the case, the respondent No. 4 laid an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Sikar. In the course of appeal, It however transpired that as the order dated 21.3.2005 was founded upon the purported order dated 7.12.1983 passed by the Revenue Minister, the Revenue Appellate Authority would not have the jurisdiction to allow the petitioners the reliefs available to them In law in the appeal proceedings while the said order stood. 8. Consequently, the petitioner appears to have been advised to file a review petition before the Revenue Minister, Government of Rajasthan against the order dated 7.12.1985 under section 84 of the Land Revenue Act inviting his attention to the subsequent order dated 7.1.1985 as also the various civil and revenue courts proceedings in respect of the lands in issue bring out the correct facts and seek relief. On the matter coming up before the Revenue Minister in the context of the facts detailed above and recorded in the order dated 29.12.2005, the Revenue Minister set aside the order dated 7.12.1983 passed earlier as also the order passed by the District Collector, Sikar on 21.3.2005 as modified vide order dated 29.3.2005. In the backdrop of the facts detailed above, the petitioner Babu Lal has approached this Court. 9. In the backdrop of the facts detailed above, the petitioner Babu Lal has approached this Court. 9. The facts of the case are a litany of startling misuse of the judicial process by the petitioner indicative of an increasing malaise recognised by Courts long ago but not rectified where litigation is not so much vindictive of rights as much a strategy to tire out the opposite party and gain unfair advantage. Such speculative litigation clogs judicial processes resulting in genuine case taking years for final adjudication. 10. Mr. N.K. Maloo, Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the order dated 29.12.2005 is liable to be set aside inter-alia on the grounds that the petitioner was not impleaded as party in the review petition filed by the respondent No. 4 before the Revenue Minister against the earlier order dated 7.12.1983. His further argument is that the review petition could not have been filed at all and the Revenue Minister had no jurisdiction to address a review petition against the order dated 7.12.1983 after a delay of about 25 years. It has also been argued with reference to Annexure-1 to the writ petition that the land in the mutation register is recorded as Charagah and on this ground alone the order passed by the District Collector, Sikar on 21.3.2005 as modified on 29.3.2005 be sustained. 11. I find no substance whatsoever in the case set up on behalf of the petitioner. For one, there was no necessity of impleading the petitioner as party in the review petition before the Revenue Minister inasmuch as the revision petition against the allotment order dated 20.4.1968 was filed by Hanuman and others and the writ petitioner Babu Lal was not the petitioner in the said revision petition filed before the Revenue Minister. In this view of the matter, while seeking review of the order dated 7.12.1983 passed in the aforesaid revision petition, there was no occasion whatsoever to implead the petitioner Babu Lal as party. 12. With regard to the second argument of Mr. Maloo, it would suffice to refer to Section 85-A of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (for short, to be referred to as the Act of 1956), which provides that the State Government may of its own motion on the application of a party to a proceeding review, rescind, alter or confirm any order made by It under the Act. Maloo, it would suffice to refer to Section 85-A of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (for short, to be referred to as the Act of 1956), which provides that the State Government may of its own motion on the application of a party to a proceeding review, rescind, alter or confirm any order made by It under the Act. The language of Section 85-A of the Act of 1956 qulte clearly empowered the Revenue Minister to review the order passed on 7.12.1983, not only In gross contravention of the principles of natural Justice, against a dead person but also over looking the factum of allotment to Sita Ram Kabra In accordance with law. Similarly, there is no substance in the argument of Mr. Maloo that Annexure- 1 to the writ petition should by itself be sufficient to the exclusion of determination by the Civil and Revenue Courts, for this Court to hold that the land in Khasra No. 1956 (new Khasra Nos. 3520, 3521, 3522, 3528, 3529 and 3530) was Charagah and not Barani as recorded in the record of rights for decades and held by the Courts repeatedly as detailed earlier in this judgment. 13. Apart from the fragility of Mr. Mallo’s contention in this regard in view of the overwhelming material on the file of the case to the contrary, Mr. Suresh Pareek, Senior counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4, in the reply has submitted that Annexure-1 to the writ petition is a suspect/document, inasmuch as it has seen the light of the day for the first time in the proceedings in the present writ petition in spite of the fact that the matter with regard to the nature of Khasra No. 1956 (new Khasra Nos. 3520, 3521, 3522, 3528, 3529 and 3530) has been contested before several forum both civil and revenue for last over 20 years. Mr. Pareek has further submitted that Annexure-1 to the writ petition relied upon by the petitioner is a document which is claimed to have been obtained from the mutation register, yet it does not make it clear as to when entry of Khasra No. 1956 as Charagah was made, under whose authority and with what legal foundation. Mr. Pareek has further submitted that Annexure-1 to the writ petition relied upon by the petitioner is a document which is claimed to have been obtained from the mutation register, yet it does not make it clear as to when entry of Khasra No. 1956 as Charagah was made, under whose authority and with what legal foundation. It has been submitted that initially the field bearing Khasra No. 1956 was consisting of 3 bighas 7 biswas was entered as Barani Soyam in the annual record pertaining to Khasra No. 1956 and this entry remained effective up to Samvat 2018 and thereafter. Photos-tat copies of the khatoni from Samvat 2010 to 2027 showing the nature of land as Barani have been file along-with reply as Annexure R-4/4. It has been submitted that thereafter 7 biswa land in old Khasra No. 1956 appears to have been taken for construction of the road and consequently new Khasra No. 1956/1 ad-measuring 3 bighas and 1956/2 ad-measuring 7 biswas for road came to be entered in the record of rights. Certified copies of the annual record from 2018 to 2021 have been submitted with the reply as Annexure R-4/5. It is further submitted that the said entry remained effective up to Samvat 2025 where about the land was allotted to Sita Ram S/o Shri Bala Bux vide mutation No. 267/2 as is evident from the entry in the annual record of the relevant period. A copy of the mutation No. 267/2 has also been annexed with the reply as Annexure R-4/6. It has been also submitted that the land comprised in Khasra No. 1956/1 remained in the possession of Sita Ram Kabra as would also be evident from the annual record from Samvat 2022 to 2025 which has also been annexed with the reply as Annexure R-4/7. Mr. Pareek submitted that subsequently the land was sold and came into the hands of respondent No. 4 by way of a registered sale deed and was accordingly mutated in his favour. It has been further s submitted that the entries pertaining to various Khasras in mutation No. 210 do not match with the revenue record obtained by the answering respondent on or about 2.3.2006. Mr. It has been further s submitted that the entries pertaining to various Khasras in mutation No. 210 do not match with the revenue record obtained by the answering respondent on or about 2.3.2006. Mr. Pareek further submitted that in any event of the matter the mutation entry is of no avail as in the Jamabandi of the relevant period which is the record of right the land has been in the ownership and possession of the erstwhile khatedar Sita Ram Kabra and thereafter his successors In interest up to the answering respondent No. 4. 14. Apart from the contentions of the counsel for the respondent No. 4 and the averments In the reply as recorded above, I am of the view that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed only on the ground of gross suppression of facts by the petitioner. The order dated 25.8.2004 passed by the Additional Collector, Sikar in Appeal No. 11/2002 indicates that the petitioner Babu Lal was appellant No. 4 in the said appeal. The Additional Collector has considered the matter at length and dismissed the said appeal holding that the mutation in favour of Mali Ram and Mohar Singh could not 2 be put to challenge in view of the fact that they were the registered purchasers under the sale deeds dated 31.5.1994 and 15.11.1997 and in possession. The Additional Collector also took into consideration the civil and revenue proceedings where the Courts had repeatedly upheld the khatedari rights of Sita Ram Kabra the original allottee/khatedari and thereafter his : successors in interest in accordance with law. It was incumbent upon the petitioner to have brought all these facts to the knowledge of the Court. A bare look at the writ petition indicates that the aforesaid facts have been suppressed by the petitioner and that the petitioner is thus guilty of suppressio veri and suggestio falsi. The equitable extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court cannot be allowed to be sullid by buccaneerish litigants. 15. A bare look at the writ petition indicates that the aforesaid facts have been suppressed by the petitioner and that the petitioner is thus guilty of suppressio veri and suggestio falsi. The equitable extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court cannot be allowed to be sullid by buccaneerish litigants. 15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of T. Arivandandam v. Satyapal and another reported in 1977(4) SCC 467 has stated that infliction of an ordeal on the High Court by a callous party is a matter of regret as also was a matter of regret that the party concerned had been able to prevail upon the lawyer one or the other to present a case to the Court which was disingenuous or worse. It has been stated that it would be a valuable contribution to the cause of justice if the counsel screen wholly fraudulent and frivolous litigation and refuse to be beguiled by dubious clients and remember that an advocate is an officer of justice and he owes it to society not to agitate cases which are of little worth such that the Bench and the Bar could expand judicial time on worthwhile disputes. 16. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka and another v. All India Manufacturers Organisation and others, reported in 2006(2) WLC (SC) Civil 410 : 2006(4) SCC 683 has held that considering the frivolous arguments and the mala fides with which the litigation was conducted before it, the case was deserving of exemplary costs of Rs. Five lacs but cost was imposed. 17. Further in Birla Technologies Limited v. Neutral Glass and Allied Industries Limited, reported in 2011(1) SCC 525 , finding the case to be palpably a frivolous case the Hon'ble Supreme Court burdened the opposite party agitating such a cause, with cost of Rs. 50,000/-. 18. Five lacs but cost was imposed. 17. Further in Birla Technologies Limited v. Neutral Glass and Allied Industries Limited, reported in 2011(1) SCC 525 , finding the case to be palpably a frivolous case the Hon'ble Supreme Court burdened the opposite party agitating such a cause, with cost of Rs. 50,000/-. 18. Similarly in Ramrameshwari Devi and others v. Nirmala Devi and others, reported in 2011(2) WLC (SC) Civil 618 : 2011(8) SCC 249 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that in order to curb uncalled for and frivolous litigation the courts have to ensure that there is no incentive or motive for uncalled for litigation and it is matter of common experience that Court’s otherwise scarce and valuable time is consumed and wasted in a large number of uncalled for cases So holding, the Hon’ble Supreme Court went on to record the credibility of the entire judiciary is at stake unless effective remedial steps are taken without further loss of time. 19. Adverting to the facts in Ram Rameshwari Devi’s case, it Is in order to note that in the case before the Supreme Court the appellants in that case had harassed/the respondents to the hilt for four decades in a totally frivolous and dishonest litigation In various courts and also consumed judicial time of the various during that period. Consequently the Supreme Court was pleased to dismiss the appeal before It with costs at Rs. 2 lacs stating theft Imposition of costs was not out of the Courts' anguish but based on the fundamental principle that the wrongdoers should not get benefit out of frivolous litigation. 20. The facts of the present case as have been detailed above indicate that the order dated 7.12.1983 was obtained ex parte behind the back of erstwhile Khatedar Sita Ram Kabra despite the fact that he had not been served and had expired in 1972. Thereafter various civil and Revenue suits were laid unsuccessfully against the respondent No. 4 and failure therein entailed filing of a writ petition before the Division Bench and based on an innocuous observation of the Division Bench, the District Collector, Sikar was persuaded again to pass an ex parte order against the recorded khatedar of the land in issue. The misuse of judicial .processes in this case are as stark and shocking as in any other conceivable case. The misuse of judicial .processes in this case are as stark and shocking as in any other conceivable case. It would be in order to state that any ex parte order obtained by suppressing material facts is liable to be treated as an order having been obtained by fraud and that such order can be challenged in any court, at any time, in appeal, revision writ or ever in collateral proceedings. In the instant case in view of what has been observed herein above, it is crystal clear that the petitioner had obtained ex-parte order not only by suppressing the material facts but also by misusing the judicial processes. The Additional Collector while deciding Appeal No. 11/2002 wherein writ petitioner Babu Lal was appellant No. 4, having elaborately considered the matter held that the mutation entered in the name of respondent No. 4 Mali Ram and one Mohar Singh could not be put to any challenge for the obvious reason that they had purchased the land in issue by two separate registered sale deeds dated 31.5.1994 and 15.11.1997. That apart, the revenue and civil Courts have repeatedly upheld the khatedari rights of the original allottee/khatedar and later his successors in interest. The writ petitioner has intentionally concealed all these material facts from the Court as would be evident from a bare reading of the averments made in the petition. 21. Consequently, I would dismiss the writ petition with exemplary costs of Rs. fifty thousand, Rs. twenty thousand to be paid to the respondent No. 4 and the remainder thirty thousand to the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority. A copy of this judgment be sent to the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority, Jaipur. 22. Ordered accordingly.Writ Petition dismissed. *******