Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1066 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Udailal

2017-04-24

ARUN BHANSALI

body2017
JUDGMENT : ARUN BHANSALI, J. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-State aggrieved against the judgment dated 03.12.2012 passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer (‘the Board’), whereby the second appeal filed by the respondents Udailal & Ors. has been accepted and orders passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Girva (‘the SDO’) dated 25.02.2011 and Addl. Divisional Commissioner, Udaipur (‘the ADM’) dated 09.09.2011 have been set aside and application filed by the respondents under Section 136 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (‘the Act’) has been allowed. 2. The respondents filed an application u/Sec. 136 of the Act for entering their names in the revenue record as Khatedars of land comprised in Khasra Nos. 2308 Min, 2309 Min, 2310 Min, 2311 Min and 2312 Min, which was recorded as Belanaam. The proceedings were contested by the Tehsildar, Girva. 3. After hearing the parties, the SDO came to the conclusion that the applicants have not produced any document regarding their uninterrupted possession and that the land never remained in Khatedari of applicants' predecessor and, consequently, rejected the application. 4. Feeling aggrieved, the respondents filed an appeal before the ADM, Udaipur. The ADM came to the conclusion that on 31.12.1978 Kamji, predecessor of the respondents was allotted 2.5 Bigha land out of 54 Bigha 2 Biswa of Sabik Aaraji No. 1326, whose new numbers as per Milan Kshetrafal were 2306 to 2315. The report of the Dy. Tehsildar has shown possession on the land, wherein correction was being sought, however, as to where the land is in possession of the appellants is not clear and as to which part of original Aaraji 1326 was allotted to Kamji and, therefore, it cannot be said that the respondents were in lawful possession of the land and were entitled for the relief and, consequently, dismissed the appeal. 5. On second appeal being filed by the respondents before the Board of Revenue, the Board came to the conclusion that in Jamabandi of Samvat 2029 to 2032, land admeasuring 2.10 Bigha was recorded in name of Kamji, predecessor of the respondents, and after settlement operations, in the new Jamabandi of Samvat 2042, the land has been recorded in the account of the State Government. The report of the Dy. Tehsildar dated 07.10.2010 indicates the respondents being in possession of the land admeasuring 0.5350 Hectares with maize crop on part of the land. The report of the Dy. Tehsildar dated 07.10.2010 indicates the respondents being in possession of the land admeasuring 0.5350 Hectares with maize crop on part of the land. The Board referred to the circular dated 20.12.1995 regarding the exercise of powers under Section 136 of the Act requiring the authorities to repeat the entries at the time of settlement and not to change them unilaterally and relying on certain judgments, came to the conclusion that the settlement authorities had no power to alter the existing entries and, consequently, allowed the second appeal and accepted the application filed by the respondents under Section 136 of the Act. 6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner-State that the Board committed manifest error in reversing the orders of the SDO and the ADM. The respondents had failed to discharge their burden and ownership and, therefore, the judgment impugned deserves to be set aside. Further submissions were made that the proceedings u/Sec. 136 of the Act cannot be used for the purpose of getting the revenue entries changed, which proceedings are summary in nature and the present case required a detailed inquiry/proceedings seeking declaration on part of the respondents and on that count, the judgment impugned passed by the Board deserves to be set aside. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the judgment impugned. It was submitted that it is well settled that authorities while conducting the settlement operation have no right to change the entries and they are bound to repeat the same. Further, for correction of the errors, which have crept in the settlement operations, the proceedings under Section 136 of the Act are maintainable and that while the SDO did not consider the report of the Dy. Tehsildar regarding possession, the Addl. Divisional Commissioner for no apparent reason discarded the same and, therefore, the Board of Revenue was justified in setting aside the two orders and accepting the application under Section 136 of the Act filed by the respondents. 8. Reliance has been placed Poosa Ram v. Board of Revenue: 1997 RRD 504 and Lad Kanwar v. Board of Revenue: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3588/2003, decided on 05.01.2017 at Jaipur Bench. 9. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 10. 8. Reliance has been placed Poosa Ram v. Board of Revenue: 1997 RRD 504 and Lad Kanwar v. Board of Revenue: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3588/2003, decided on 05.01.2017 at Jaipur Bench. 9. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 10. The SDO as noticed hereinbefore rejected the application simply on the ground that the possession of the respondents was not established and did not even refer to the report of the Dy. Tehsildar, who categorically indicated that the respondents were in possession of the land and on part of the land maize crop was standing. The ADM, though referred to the report, but disputed that the same does not indicated as to whether the possession was on the land, which was initially allotted to Kamji, the predecessor of the respondents and based on that, dismissed the appeal. 11. However, both the authorities did not consider the aspect that admittedly the allotment was made to Kamji, predecessor of the respondents and his name was entered in the revenue records, however, post settlement operations, his name was deleted from the revenue records and the land in question was recorded as Belanaam i.e. Govt. land. Further there is also no dispute that Milan Kshetrafal indicates that the land in possession of the respondents forms part of the Khasra, wherein land was allotted to the respondents and, therefore, once the possession and the entries of Kamji in the previous settlement is established, the burden essentially lay on the State to indicate as to why in the new settlement, the entries were altered and when the respondents continued to be in possession of the land in question, the deletion of entries cannot be supported in any manner including the circular issued by the State dated 20.12.1995 regarding the settlement operations. 12. 12. So far as the submissions made regarding maintainability of application under Section 136 of the Act is concerned, a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Poosa Ram (supra) relying on earlier Division Bench judgment in the case of Jai Narain v. The Board of Revenue: 1980 RLW 90 and State of Rajasthan v. Than Singh: D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 163/1978, decided on 25.04.1978, came to the conclusion that the Land Records Officer is competent under Section 136 and 125 of the Act after the settlement operations are over, to correct the error crept in the record of rights during the settlement operation. 13. In view thereof, the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner-State regarding the exercise of jurisdiction has no substance. 14. The law regarding the repetition of the entries at the time of settlement is also well settled as laid down in the case of Tehsildar, Girva v. Bhagwan: 2001 (4) WLC (Raj.) 387, wherein it was laid down that the Settlement Officer is not empowered to substitute the entries in the revenue record. The judgment of Bhagwan (supra) has been followed in the recent case of Lad Kanwar (supra). 15. In view of the above discussion, it cannot be said that the Board of Revenue committed any error in passing the judgment dated 03.12.2012 so as to require interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 16. Consequently, there is no substance in the writ petition, the same is, therefore, dismissed. Writ petition dismissed.