Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 72 (RAJ)

U. I. T. , Udaipur v. Kering

2013-01-10

VINEET KOTHARI

body2013
Hon'ble Dr. KOTHARI, J.—This writ petition has been filed by the Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'UIT, Udaipur') against the order dated 22.05.2002 (Annex.10) passed by the Division Bench of Board of Revenue, whereby the Board of Revenue held affirming the findings of revenue courts below that the new Khasra No.365, 366 and 367 of Village Goverdhan Vilas, Tehsil Girwa, District: Udaipur, were not the renumbering of old Khasra No. 259 and such finding arrived at by them on the basis of comparison of the old and new trace maps were correct finding and do not require any interference by the Division Bench of the Board of Revenue in the second appeal of the petitioner- UIT, Udaipur, wherein UIT, Udaipur claimed that the land in question vested in it, whereas private respondents claimed it to be belonging to them. 2. Being aggrieved by the said finding, the petitioner- UIT, Udaipur has come up before this Court by filing this writ petition. 3. Mr. Deelip Kawadia, learned counsel for the petitioner-UIT, Udaipur urged that land of old Khasra No.256, 257, 258, 259, 271/2, 254, 231/2, 232, 253 and 255 Kita 10 measuring 7 Bigha and 11 Biswa, which were renumbered as Khasra Nos. 353, 354, 356, 357, 358, 359, 360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368 Kita 15 Rakba 1.7300 Hectare was there and since 1.7300 Hectare (not mntioning equivalent Bighas and Biswas for no good reason) is not equivalent, but is more than even the claim of the land owners, respondents herein, viz. Kering S/o Amara Bheel and others, which was only for 7 Bigha and 11 Biswa; whereas 1.7300 Hectare would be approximately 9 Bigha and 10 Biswa, which is in excess of the claim of the respondents and, therefore, the comparison, allegedly made by the revenue courts below including the Board of Revenue could not be said to be right. The said trace maps are not placed on record of this Court. The said trace maps are not placed on record of this Court. He also submitted that even the admission of the respondents themselves before the revenue courts in this regard that upon total comparison of measurements of the concerned Khasra/s in question bearing old Khasra numbers and new Khasra numbers, there would be such excess of measurement, but such admission of respondents has been read against the petitioner – UIT, Udaipur by the learned Board of Revenue; and wrong findings of the revenue courts below have been affirmed by the Board of Revenue erroneously. He, therefore, submitted that the present writ petition of UIT, Udaipur deserves to be allowed. 4. On the other hand, Mr. B.K. Bhatnagar and Mr. Sheetal Kumbhat, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently submitted that the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by three revenue courts below up to the Board of Revenue, do not require any interference by this Court; and since the petitioner- UIT, Udaipur admittedly has no right over the old Khasra No.259, which was renumbered as new Khasra No.353 to 368, as given above, therefore, the concurrent findings of facts do not deserves to be disturbed at the instance of the petitioner- UIT, Udaipur. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and respondents at some length, this Court is of the opinion that there is apparent incongruity and inconsistency in the factual matrix given by the Board of Revenue that upon comparison of the total area of old Khasra numbers and new Khasra numbers (with trace maps), the measurements do not tally and that shows the non-application of mind by the Board of Revenue, while affirming the findings of the revenue courts below. 6. Curiously, and some time, even painfully, this Court has noticed that these kind of discrepancies in the description of the measurements of the agricultural land in the orders passed by the revenue courts including the Board of Revenue, in the absence of a uniform unit of measurement given consistently by the revenue courts and the Board of Revenue, all over the State, this kind of confusion and inconsistencies are bound to arise. These Land Reform Laws when they were enacted, indicated the measurement terms in 'Bigha' and 'Biswa', whereas over the long period of more than 60 years, presently the measurements of land in the unit of feet, meters and yards have become prevalent and agricultural lands are often converted for non-agricultural purposes, where such units of measurement is adopted in conveyance deeds etc. The need and requirement of converting one unit of measurement into another, to verify the findings of fact given by the revenue courts in such cases can be avoided, and in the considered opinion of this Court considerable litigation can be reduced, if the revenue courts all over the State adopt a uniform method of describing the agricultural land in uniform manner in clearly understandable unit of measurement or at least, the equivalents of one measurement unit with others like Bighas and Biswas equivalent to square meters or yards or feet, should be always described in the orders, decrees and notifications for bringing the desired result of avoiding the confusion and inconsistencies in such cases. Otherwise some revenue courts use Hectares, while some use Bigha/Biswas and without new and old Khasra numbers given simultaneously, the confusion is abound. 7. In the present case itself, while holding that new Khasra No.365 etc. the land in question became 1.7300 hectare, whereas the land of old Khasra No.256 etc. in question, was only 7 Bigha and 11 Biswa; and admittedly two measurements do not tally, in the absence of any comparative measurements given in other units of measurements like square feet or square meters, the present case is a glaring example of confusion and inconsistencies, described above. It is also expected of the Revenue courts that whenever there is a change of Khasra numbers, upon change of layout plans, which should be undertakenly only when it is absolutely necessary but if it is done, revenue courts should be bound to give the old Khasra numbers in the brackets with the new Khasra numbers, to avoid any possible confusion in this regard also. The rival contentions of the learned counsels for the parties also reflects that without taking a complete and comprehensive view of the land in question and without comparing the measurements of land of two Khasra/s in question, the appeal of the petitioner- UIT, Udaipur came to be rejected by the Board of Revenue by the short order dated 22.05.2002, which does not inspire any confidence. 8. Therefore, this Court is left with no option but to set aside the impugned order of Board of Revenue dated 22.05.2002 and remand the matter back to the Board of Revenue to decide the appeal of the UIT, Udaipur again in the light of observations made by the Court herein above. The Board of Revenue being final fact finding body under the Revenue Law, is expected to give its own clear findings of fact containing the justification of two rival claims of the parties with respect to old Khasra numbers and new Khasra numbers and their respective measurements and then arrive at a finding of fact whether the petitioner- UIT, Udaipur has any claim over the land belonging to the respondents (land owners) or not. The findings given in the impugned order are not at all clear, to say the least. 9. Accordingly, this writ petition of UIT, Udaipur is allowed and the impugned order (Annex.10) dated 22.05.2002 passed by the Board of Revenue is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Board of Revenue, which may decide the appeal of the petitioner-UIT, Udaipur again after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties, giving its own findings of facts based on relevant record, which is already available with them or which may now be produced by the parties before it in the light of the observations made above, preferably describing the measurement of land equivalent with other units of measurement which are more prevalent now, besides describing the land in question in terms of Bighas and Biswas as defined in the Revenue Law also. 10. 10. The Board at its own level may also consider to issue appropriate Circular with such comparative measurements in different units for circulation to the lower Revenue courts, for adoption of uniform system of units of measurements and always describe the land in question in two or more equivalent measurements in different units for the sake of clarity and also to always describe the old Khasra numbers and new or changed Khasra numbers, simultaneously. It is hoped and expected that the Board of Revenue will take appropriate action in this regard and send a compliance report to this Court for information within three months from today. A copy of this order be also sent to the Chairman, Board of Revenue and Revenue Secretary of Government of Rajasthan, for information and necessary action forthwith. No order as to costs.