Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 87 (RAJ)

Dhan Singh Rathore v. State of Rajasthan

2016-01-13

ARUN BHANSALI

body2016
ORDER : Arun Bhansali, J. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the judgment dated 11.2.2014 passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer ('BOR'), whereby the reference made by the District Collector, Jodhpur under Section 82 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 ('the Act') has been accepted. 2. In the writ petition, which was filed on 17.10.2015, it is inter-alia indicated that the land in question is comprised in Khasara No.209, wherein land ad measuring 1000 Sq. Yds. was regularised and mutated in favour of one Mangi widow of Narayan Ram on 27.6.1989 vide mutation No.212; Smt. Mangi sold the land to Smt. Vidhya Devi vide a registered sale deed dated 15.12.1989; a part of land was sold to Shyam Lal through registered sale deed dated 10.10.1991; Shyam Lal applied before the SDO for conversion of the land from agriculture to residential and was issued a patta; Shyam Lal sold the land to Trilok Chand Acharya vide registered sale deed dated 10.3.1995; Trilok Chand sold the land to Shyam Lal through registered sale 2 deed dated 17.4.2006; Shyam Lal appointed one Smt. Praveena Vyas as his power of attorney holder for dealing with the land in question vide power of attorney dated 26.3.2007; Smt. Praveena Vyas sold the land to Smt. Reena Soni vide registered sale deed dated 5.3.2012 and now the petitioner has been appointed as power of attorney holder of Smt. Reena Soni by executing a power of attorney dated 26.11.2014. 3. It is submitted that recently, the petitioner came to know about the judgment dated 11.2.2014 passed by the BOR, whereby the reference made by the District Collector, Jodhpur to BOR has been accepted and a mutation made in the year 1989 in favour of Smt. Mangi Bai was declared null and void. 4. It is inter-alia claimed that Smt. Reena Soni is a registered owner of the plot in question, but the BOR without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner has declared the mutation of Smt. Mangi Bai as null and void resulting in petitioner loosing his title over the land in question, which is illegal and unconstitutional being violative of principles of natural justice and fundamental rights of the petitioner. 5. 5. A bare perusal of the order passed by the BOR would reveal that Oma Ram, Deepak, Vidhya Devi, Shyamlal Tak, Chandra Prakash and Kumud Bala were impleaded as party respondents, which was pending since the year 2002 before the BOR and the respondents were duly represented before the BOR. 6. After hearing the parties, the BOR came to the conclusion that the regularisation of the land in favour of Smt. Mangi bai was void and therefore, the mutation/transfer and conversion subsequent thereto were also void; while only 1000 Sq.yds. land 3 was regularised in favour of Smt. Mangi Bai, while mutating the land in her favour, the same has been mutated as 10 Biswa and as such, based on its finding accepted the reference. 7. Admittedly, the reference was accepted on 11.2.2014 and the land was purchased by Smt. Reena Soni from Smt. Praveena Vyas, power of attorney holder of Shyam Lal on 5.3.2012 i.e. during the pendency of the reference which reference has been accepted by the BOR and therefore, the petitioner essentially has no locus standi to question the judgment dated 11.2.2014 as the matter is governed by provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and the petitioner has chosen to purchase the land from such owners, whose ownership was already under challenge before the BOR and stood declared void and nonest by the BOR on 11.2.2014. The remedy, if any, which the petitioner can claim is only against the transferor i.e. Shyam Lal/Smt. Praveena Vyas, based on non-disclosure of material facts i.e. pendency of proceedings before the BOR. In view of the above discussion, there is no substance in the writ petition, the same is, therefore, dismissed.