Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 235 (RAJ)

Majid Khan v. Salim Khan

2012-01-31

SUBODH AGRAWAL

body2012
AGARWAL, M.—This is a revision petition under Section 84 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (in short `the Act') against the judgment dated 20.1.2004 passed by Revenue Appellate Authority Sikar. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that Patwari Halka Kasli submitted a report before Tehsildar Sikar that in Svt. 2058 mentioning that the non-petitioner No. 1 has trespassed on 0.03 hectare of land in khasra No. 394 measuring 2.65 hectare. Thereupon Tehsildar initiated proceeding under Section 91 of the Act against the non-petitioner. During the course of proceedings under Section 91 of the Act, it came to the knowledge that the non-petitioner No. 1 has a `patta' of the disputed and which has been regularised in his favour. Hence the Tehsildar dropped the proceedings under Section 91 of the Act vide judgment dated 31.5.2001. Aggrieved against this order of Tehsildar, the present petitioner, submitted an appeal before District Collector Sikar who dismissed the appeal in his judgment dated 5.2.2002. This order was further challenged by the petitioner before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Sikar who also dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner vide judgment dated 20.1.2004 Distressed by this judgment of Revenue Appellate Authority Sikar, the petitioner has submitted the instant revision before this Court. 3. I have heard the learned counsel of both the parties. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the said `patta' was issued by the Sarpanch. Kasli to the non-petitioner, whereas Sarpanch has no right to issue patta on the gochar land (pasture land). He further submitted that khasra No. 394 is a `gochar' land and such lands cannot be purchased or sold. Hence, he pressed for acceptance of the revision. 5. Opposing the contentions of the petitioner the learned counsel for the non-petitioner contended that the proceedings under Section 91 of the Act were dropped by lower-Court when thee non-petitioner submitted the `patta' of the disputed land which was regularised by the Tehsildar in favour of the non-petitioner on 11.7.1974. He further pleaded that the Gram Panchayat had issued patta of the disputed land in favour of the non-petitioner which was subsequently regularised by the Tehsildar concerned as per the government notification No. 46(17) Raj/3/71 dated 3.7.1971 and 46(10) Raj./Group-4/77 dated 23.4.1977. Hence no illegality was committed by the revenue officials in regarding the disputed land in favour of the non-petitioner. Hence no illegality was committed by the revenue officials in regarding the disputed land in favour of the non-petitioner. The learned counsel further contended that Board of Revenue should not interfere in the concurrent judgments of the lower Courts, unless it has exercised the jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. In support of his contention learned counsel eited 1995 RRD 731. The counsel contended that since the petitioner has no `locus standi' in the case and, therefore the revision petition filed by the petitioner should be dismissed. 6. I have given thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions, perused the impugned judgments of lower Courts and gone through the relevant notifications, citations and material on record. 7. Perusal of the lower Courts file shows that the patta of the disputed land was issued to the non-petitioner by the Sarpanch Kasli and the same was regularised by the Tehsildar concerned in favour of the non-petitioner. As per the government's notification No. P6(17) Raj./3/71 dated 3.7.1971 and 46(10) Raj./Group-4/77 dated 23.4.1977. Tehsildar was empowered to regularise the land of `charagah', forest etc. for abadi purposes. The relevant portion of the notification is as under:- ^^;fn fdlh vklkeh] d`f"k Jfed ;k xkao ds dkjhxj] vuqlwfpr tkfr ,oa vuqlwfpr tutkfr ds lnL;ksa] ftUgksaus 18 Qjojh 1955 ds mijkUr ijUrq 31 fnlEcj 1970 ds iwoZ ljdkjh d`f"k Hkwfe] xkspj Hkwfe] xSj eqefdu Hkwfe rFkk ou Hkwfe ij Lo;a ds mi;ksx ds fy, jgus gsrq edku dk fuekZ.k ;k ckM+k cukdj Hkwfe dk :ikUrj.k ;k vfrØe.k fd;k gks rks muds ekeys Hkh fu%'kqYd fu;eu fd;s tkdj mudks ekfydkuk gd ns fn;k tkos c'krsZ fd bl rjg cuk;s x;s edku ,oa ckM+k dk {ks=Qy 500 oxZ xt ls vf/kd u gksaA** This date was further extended till 1.7.1975 vide above mentioned notification dated 23.4.1977. The record available on the file shows that the non-petitioners has been regularised only 150 Sq. yards of land which is not contrary to the notification. As such no illegality or material irregularity has been committed by the lower Courts. Both the lower Courts have passed concurrent judgments which deserve no interference by way of revisional jurisdiction. This has been examined and explicitly ruled in AIR 1973(SC) 76, 1995 RRD 730 and 1995 RRD 731. 8. Further, the petitioner is not aggrieved by the regularisation made in favour of the non-petitioner and as such has no locus standi in the present matter. This has been examined and explicitly ruled in AIR 1973(SC) 76, 1995 RRD 730 and 1995 RRD 731. 8. Further, the petitioner is not aggrieved by the regularisation made in favour of the non-petitioner and as such has no locus standi in the present matter. Therefore, there is no force in the revision. 9. This revision petition accordingly stands dismissed. Pronounced in open Court.