Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 430 (RAJ)

LR’s Teja Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2014-02-10

AMITAVA ROY, VIJAY BISHNOI

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the order dated 24.04.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge in SBCWP No. 1364/1993, whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition. Brief facts of the case are that Tehsildar, Barmer, while exercising powers under Section 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act of 1956' hereinafter) issued a notice to Late Teja Ram to show cause as to why he may not be dispossessed from the illegal occupation from the Government land situated in Khasra No. 1468 of Barmer. Late Teja Ram submitted his reply to the said notice, and simultaneously filed a suit in the Court of Assistant Collector, Barmer under Section 88 and 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act of 1955' hereinafter) seeking declaration of Khatedari Rights in respect of 54 Bighas of land in Khasra No. 1468 of Barmer. The Assistant Collector, Barmer vide judgment dated 25.03.1983, had dismissed the revenue suit preferred by Late Teja Ram and held that he was having possession over some part of the land in dispute during the period commencing from Samvat Year 2021 to 2026 and thereafter for some period from Samvat Year 2036 to 2039 only. The Assistant Collector, Barmer had further observed that the land, over which Late Teja Ram was having possession, is recorded as 'Bila Kabja Sarkari Padat' in the revenue records and he failed to prove his continuous possession over the said land. The Assistant Collector, Barmer has also doubted the genuineness of the patta produced by Late Teja Ram in support of his claim that the said patta was granted to him by former Jagirdars of Barmer. The Assistant Collector, Barmer also observed that looking to the measurement of the land given in the patta, it cannot be concluded that the same is pertaining to an agricultural land. 2. Being aggrieved with the judgment passed by the Assistant Collector, Barmer on 25.03.1983, Late Teja Ram preferred an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jodhpur under Section 223 of the Act of 1955. The said appeal came to be allowed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jodhpur on 15.05.1984 and revenue suit preferred by the Late Teja Ram was decreed in his favour. 3. Admittedly no appeal or revision was preferred on behalf of the Sate Government under the provisions of the Act of 1955. The said appeal came to be allowed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jodhpur on 15.05.1984 and revenue suit preferred by the Late Teja Ram was decreed in his favour. 3. Admittedly no appeal or revision was preferred on behalf of the Sate Government under the provisions of the Act of 1955. However, a reference was made by the District Collector, Barmer to the Board of Revenue under Section 221 of the Act of 1955 questioning the validity of the order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jodhpur on 15.05.1984. The Board of Revenue, vide judgment dated 27.05.1992, has accepted the said reference and a review application preferred by Late Teja Ram was also rejected by the Board of Revenue vide order dated 15.02.1993. 4. Being aggrieved with the orders passed passed by the Board of Revenue dated 27.05.1992 and 15.02.1993, Late Teja Ram preferred the above mentioned writ petition, which came to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge by the impugned order. 5. Assailing the validity of the impugned order dated 24.04.2006, the learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the learned Single Judge has erred in not appreciating that the Board of Revenue had exercised its jurisdiction under Section 221 of the Act of 1955 on a totally non-existence ground. It is also contended that though the learned Single Judge has clearly accepted the position that in Jagir of Barmer Pargana Malani, the maintenance of revenue record was in most haphazard manner and no record regarding the grant of patta was maintained and but illegally held that the patta issued in favour of petitioner does not inspire confidence. The learned counsel for the appellant has further argued that there was ample evidence available on record to the effect that patta in favour of Late Teja Ram for the land in question was granted by the then Jagirdar and Jaridar himself deposed before the Assistant Collector, Barmer to substantiate the fact that patta was granted to Late Teja Ram. The learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jodhpur had rightly decreed the suit while taking into consideration the evidence produced by Late Teja Ram before the Assistant Collector, Barmer and the same cannot be said to be based on no evidence. The learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jodhpur had rightly decreed the suit while taking into consideration the evidence produced by Late Teja Ram before the Assistant Collector, Barmer and the same cannot be said to be based on no evidence. The learned counsel for the appellant has therefore, prayed that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge may be set aside and the orders passed by the Board of Revenue dated 27.05.1992 and 15.02.1993 may also be quashed and set aside. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-State has argued that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Single Judge has rightly passed the impugned order, which does not require any interference. It is contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jodhpur had decreed the suit preferred by Late Teja Ram without there being sufficient evidence regarding the old and continuous possession of Late Teja Ram over the land in question. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that the land in question was recorded as 'Bila Kabja Sarkari Padat' in the revenue records and the appellants have encroached over the said land without there being any authority. The patta granted in favour of the petitioner cannot be said to be genuine as the measurements of the land given in patta does not meet the requirements of an agricultural land. The learned counsel for the respondents has therefore, prayed that this appeal may kindly be dismissed. 7. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the material placed on record. 8. So far powers of superintendence of Board of Revenue is concerned in Surendra Pal Singh v. Board of Revenue for Rajasthan & Ors., reported in, AIR 1994 SC 1439 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has occasioned to consider Section 221 of the Act of 1955, and after taking into consideration same decisions of this Court on the point in issue, has held as under:- "It is clear from the language of Section 221 of the Act of 1955 that the Board of Revenue has general powers of superintendence and control over all revenue Courts. It is both administrative as well as judicial powers. It is both administrative as well as judicial powers. It is open to the Board to exercise its powers of Superintendence on all its Subordinate Courts in order to regulate the functioning of the Subordinate Courts so as to keep them within their respective spheres of jurisdiction. If the Subordinate Court disregards any specific provision of law and does something illegal it is open to the Board of Revenue to interfere and set the matter right." 9. In view of the above decision, it is clear that the Board of Revenue has general powers of Superintendence over all Revenue Courts and can exercise the said powers to regulate the functioning of the Subordinate Courts and if the Subordinate Court does something illegal the Board of Revenue can interfere in the matter. 10. In the instant case the Board of Revenue as well as the learned Single Judge have given a categorical finding that the Revenue Appellate Authority has travelled beyond the jurisdiction vested with it by accepting and decreeing the suit without having sufficient evidence with regard to the possession of the Late Teja Ram over the land. It has also been concluded by the Board of Revenue that there was no evidence available on record to prove the possession of the petitioner over huge chunk of land, and the conduct of the petitioner of not approaching the Court of law, at an early stage when the land in question was recorded as Government land, also disentitles the petitioner to claim Khatedari over the land in question. In respect of the alleged patta, on the basis of which, Late Teja Ram was claiming Khatedari over the land, the Board of Revenue as well as the learned Single Judge have observed that it does not inspire confidence as looking to the measurement of the land mentioned in the said patta, it cannot be termed as a patta for an agricultural land. The Board of Revenue as well as the learned Single Judge have thoroughly scanned the evidence available on record and found that the Revenue Appellate Authority has wrongly decreed the suit in favour of Late Teja Ram. 11. The Board of Revenue as well as the learned Single Judge have thoroughly scanned the evidence available on record and found that the Revenue Appellate Authority has wrongly decreed the suit in favour of Late Teja Ram. 11. After scrutinising the material available on record, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the Board of Revenue as well as the learned Single Judge can be a possible view and learned counsel for the appellant has failed to convince us to take a different view in the case. Hence, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******