Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2083 (RAJ)

Nathu v. State of Rajasthan

2013-11-25

GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Admittedly, as per the order dated 19.8.2008 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Ajmer, the name of the petitioner was not entered in the revenue record, therefore, the Divisional Commissioner held that the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the order passed by the competent authority under Section 90-B of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1956). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that erroneously the name of the petitioner was not entered in the revenue record and for that purpose a suit has already been filed by the petitioner, which is pending, therefore, the petitioner can challenge the validity of the order passed under Section 90-B of the Act of 1956 for the land for which suit has been filed by the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that there is complete bar to entertain the civil against the order passed under Section 90-B of the Act of 1956, therefore, remedy of writ petition is only available to the petitioner to challenge the order passed under Section 90-B of the Act of 1956, therefore, the order dated 19.8.2008 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Ajmer as well as the order passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer dated 8.5.2012 may be quashed. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently argued that in the documents produced for the purpose of granting conversion of land under Section 90-B of the Act of 1956, the name of the petitioner was not appearing, therefore, the Divisional Commissioner, Ajmer rightly held that the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the order impugned passed under Section 90-B of the Act of 1954. It is also argued that although as per the provision of the Act, order passed under Section 90-B of the Act of 1956 cannot be challenged in civil suit but herein this case the dispute is with regard to title of the land in question for which suit has already been filed by the petitioner which is yet to be decided by the-competent civil, therefore, the proceedings undertaken under Section 90-B of the Act of 1956 upon the application filed by the respondents was perfectly in accordance with law, therefore, this writ petition may be dismissed. 6. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, it is abundantly clear that the petitioner is claiming his right on the ground that his name was erroneously not entered in the revenue record and respondent Nos. 5 and 6 got conversion of land in their favour under Section 90-B of the Act of 1956. In my opinion, the Divisional Commissioner has rightly rejected the petitioner's prayer on the ground that he has no locus standi because as per petitioner admission, his name is not entered in revenue record. However, if any right will be determined by the Civil Court in the suit filed by him, then, the petitioner will be at liberty to raise voice against the order passed under Section 90-B of the Act of 1956 but at this stage, no relief can be granted to the petitioner solely on the ground that his name is not entered in the revenue record. 7. In view of above, this writ petition is hereby dismissed. However, the petitioner will be at liberty to challenge the order passed under Section 90-B of the Act of 1956 before the authorities concerned in the event of determination of his right in his favour by the Civil Court.Petition dismissed. *******