Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1658 (RAJ)

Chhinder Singh v. Board of Revenue, Rajasthan

2015-09-11

SANGEET LODHA

body2015
JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition is directed against order dated 11.10.12 passed by the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan whereby an application preferred by the respondent no.5-Laxmi Narain for impleading him as party respondent in the application preferred by the petitioners herein under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 read with Section 221 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, has been allowed. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the application preferred by the respondent no.5 has been allowed by the Board of Revenue, observing that the application preferred by the petitioners herein, relates to the land comprising Murbba no. 40/13 and the respondent no. 5 herein is also khatedar tenant of the land comprising Murbba no. 40/13. Learned counsel submitted that the respondent no.5 is khatedar tenant of 14 bighas land Kila no. 12 to 25, comprising Murbba no. 40/13 in Chak 5 GDM and has nothing to do with the disputed land ad measuring 10 bighas and 8 biswas, comprising Kila no. 1 to 11, Murbba no. 40/13. Learned counsel submitted that merely because the respondent no. 5 is holding khatedari rights over the land comprising Murbba no. 40/13, he cannot be permitted to inter meddle in the matter pending before the Board of Revenue, questioning the legality of the note entered n the Sale Register on the basis of the order dated 13.4.2000 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Suratgarh, cancelling the allotment made in favour of Amar Kaur, wife of Sansar Singh, the mother of the petitioner, allegedly for not depositing the instalments. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.5 fairly submitted that the petitioners are not recorded khatedar of the disputed land, however, they have preferred an application for regularisation of their possession over the land in question, which is pending consideration before the competent authority. Learned counsel submitted that the disputed land is in possession of the petitioners. 4. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 5. A perusal of the order impugned reveals that the Board of Revenue has directed impleadment of the respondent no. 5 as party respondent in the pending proceedings, solely on the ground that the respondent no. 5 is also holding the land comprising Murbba No. 40/13. Indisputably, the land held by the respondent no. 5. A perusal of the order impugned reveals that the Board of Revenue has directed impleadment of the respondent no. 5 as party respondent in the pending proceedings, solely on the ground that the respondent no. 5 is also holding the land comprising Murbba No. 40/13. Indisputably, the land held by the respondent no. 5 is different than the land in respect whereof the petitioners are claiming rights on the strength of the allotment made in favour of their mother, which has been treated to be cancelled on account of non payment of instalments. It is pertinent to note that the respondent no. 5, who is claiming to be in possession of the land in question was directed to be evicted from the land vide order dated 6.3.12 passed by the Tehsildar, Suratgarh and the appeal preferred by him aggrieved thereby stand dismissed by the Additional Collector, Suratgarh vide order dated 21.5.12. In this regard, order Annexure-5/3 placed on record by the respondent no. 5 is self explanatory. In this view of the matter, the respondent no. 5, who had ; encroached over the land in question and was directed to be evicted therefrom has no right to inter meddle in the matter pending before the Board of Revenue, wherein the petitioners have questioned the entries made regarding the cancellation of allotment of the land in question made in favour of their mother allegedly on account of non payment of instalments. 6. For the aforementioned reasons, the order passed by the Board of Revenue is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 7. In the result, the petition succeeds, it is hereby allowed. The order impugned dated 11.10.12 passed by the Board of Revenue, allowing the application preferred by the respondent no. 5 for impleadment is set aside. No order as to costs.Writ petition allowed. *******