Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 363 (RAJ)

Mera Day v. State of Rajasthan

2016-03-03

ARUN BHANSALI

body2016
JUDGMENT : Arun Bhansali, J. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against endorsement made in petitioner's pass-book (Annex.-5) by the Patwari, inter alia, indicating that by mutation entry No.339, the land in question has been recorded as Siway Chak. 2. It is, inter alia, indicated in the writ petition that the petitioner purchased the land in question by registered sale deed dated 27.01.1992 from Sohan Singh, Jabbar Singh, Ram Singh sons of Kalu Singh. The land in question admeasures 69 Bigha 17 Biswa and is comprised in Khasra No. 9/310. It is also indicated that in the Jamabandi (Annex.-3), which pertains to Samvat Year 2018-2031, the land comprised in various Khasras, which was jointly held by several persons, it was indicated that Kalu Singh S/o. Moti Singh predecessor of petitioner's transferors was having 1/36 share. Where after, after sale of land in petitioner's favour vide Annex.-4, mutation was recorded in name of the petitioner and pass-book (Annex.-5) was issued, however, without indicating anything, the endorsement as noticed hereinbefore was made based on mutation No.339. The petitioner in the writ petition has placed reliance on order (Annex.-2) dated 10.04.1995 passed by the SDO, Pokhran. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent-State was not justified in making the endorsement on the pass-book of the petitioner regarding the land having been recorded as Siway Chak. It is submitted that the said action has apparently been taken on account of the land having been surrendered by petitioner's predecessor-in-interest under the ceiling proceedings, which were initiated/decided against them and it is well settled that a holder-of land under the ceiling proceedings is not entitled to surrender encumbered land if he is in possession of unencumbered land and, therefore, the land having been transferred to the petitioner could not have been surrendered by the transferors. 4. Reliance was placed on Gulab Singh & Anr. v. State & Ors., 2005 (1) RRT 1. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent-State opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. It was submitted that the petitioner has failed to make out any case for interference in the present writ petition as there is apparently no material available on record to support the contentions raised by the petitioners and, therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. It was submitted that the petitioner has failed to make out any case for interference in the present writ petition as there is apparently no material available on record to support the contentions raised by the petitioners and, therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 7. From the perusal of the material, it appears that ceiling proceedings were initiated against the land-holders Gajey Singh, Mool Singh, Daulat Singh, Khet Singh and others in the year 1970. The proceedings resulted in order dated 24.01.1976 passed by the SDO, Pokhran, wherein the order was passed for acquisition of the land, which was in excess of the ceiling limit. Where after, apparently nothing happened and on 02.03.1990, an application was filed before the SDO, Pokhran by Surat Singh, Ranjeet Singh, Mohan Singh, inter alia with the averments, that their lands were wrongly acquired under the Ceiling Act though they have nothing to do with the ceiling proceedings initiated against Gaje Singh, Mool Singh etc. The SDO, Pokhran by order dated 07.01.1991 passed order correcting the alleged mistake, which order was questioned by said Gaje Singh, Mool Singh and Daulat Singh before the District Collector, Jaisalmer, who by order dated 29.12.1992 partly allowed the appeal. Against the order dated 29.12.1992 further appeals were filed and the Board of Revenue by its order dated 24.09.1993 set aside the order dated 07.01.1991 and 29.12.1992 passed by the SDO, Pokhran and the District Collector Jaisalmer respectively and remanded back the matter to the SDO, Pokhran. The SDO by his order dated 10.04.1995 (Annex.-2) after hearing the parties, rejected the plea raised by Surat Singh etc. 8. It appears that after the order dated 07.01.1991 and 29.12.1992 were passed by the SDO, Pokhran and the District Collector, Jaisalmer respectively, lands were recorded pursuant to the directions issued in favour of Surat Singh etc. including Kalu Singh S/o. Moti Singh, where after the same was transferred by sons of Kalu Singh including the land in question. 9. However, as the orders dated 07.01.1991 and 29.12.1992 were set aside by the Board of Revenue, the passing of the said orders and recording of the land vide Annex.-3 and Annex.-4 in favour of Kalu Singh S/o. Moti Singh etc. 9. However, as the orders dated 07.01.1991 and 29.12.1992 were set aside by the Board of Revenue, the passing of the said orders and recording of the land vide Annex.-3 and Annex.-4 in favour of Kalu Singh S/o. Moti Singh etc. and in favour of the petitioner essentially is of no consequence. 10. The cause of action to the petitioner arose by recording of the endorsement on his pass-book (Annex.-5) regarding mutation No.339. Against the said mutation and/or endorsement the petitioner has rushed to this Court and that also without producing any material whatsoever to support his claim except for the sale deed (Annex.-1) and the order dated 10.04.1995 (Annex.-2), which also was passed on an application made by Surat Singh & Ors. and apparently regarding which the petitioner had nothing to do and even if the same had any implication, the same was apparently against the interest of the petitioner. 11. On account of lack of any material available on record to sustain the plea raised by the petitioner based on the alleged action on part of the transferors by surrendering the encumbered land sold to the petitioner, no interference is called for in the order/action impugned and the writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. 12. However, it would be open for the petitioner to take appropriate proceedings qua the mutation No.339 in accordance with law.