Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 231 (RAJ)

Arjun Singh v. State

2018-01-18

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2018
JUDGMENT & ORDER : VIJAY BISHNOI, J. 1. This writ petition is preferred by the petitioners being aggrieved with two resolutions dated 06.04.1998 and 08.04.1998 passed by Gram Sabha, Anadara, whereby the Gram Sabha resolved that the land of Khasra No. 1844 to 1854, 1856, 1857 and 1853/2531 measuring about 47 Bighas and 7 Biswas be remain recorded in names of Umed Ram, Ratta and Dana, all sons of late Lakha, in the revenue records. 2. Khatedari bandobast of Samvat year 2014-2033 is placed on record as Annexure-1 by the petitioners in support of their claim that the above mentioned land was recorded in names of Umed Ram, Ratta and Dalla and name of Dana was not there. 3. It is contended that later on in Jama Bandi pertaining to Samvat year 2024-2026, in place of Dalla, name of Dana was inserted and being aggrieved with the same, the petitioners approached the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sirohi for change in the revenue record with the claim that in place of name of Dalla, name of Dana has wrongly been inserted in the revenue record. The Sub-Divisional Officer has returned the claim of the petitioners on the ground that since the village Anadara has been declared as Gramdan village under the Rajasthan Gramdan Act, 1971 (for short 'the Act of 1971' hereinafter), only the Gram Sabha of Gramdan village has power to make necessary entries or change in the revenue records. 4. It is also contended that deceased Smt. Mani Bai - respondent No.3 widow of Dana had filed a suit for partition before the Sub-Divisional Officer, however, the said suit was dismissed by the Sub-Divisional Officer for the same reason that the Gram Sabha of Gramdan village Anadara only has jurisdiction to deal with the matter. As per Section 46 of the Act of 1971, the said orders were passed by the SDO in the year 1995. 5. It is further contended that the petitioners moved an application before the Gram Sabha with the prayer for changing the necessary entries in the revenue record, however, the Gram Sabha vide resolutions dated 06.04.1998 and 08.04.1998 resolved that the entries made in the revenue record pertaining to Samvat year 2024-2026 are not liable to be interfered with while giving a finding that late Lakha had only three sons viz. Umed Ram, Ratta and Dana and there is no son named Dalla. Umed Ram, Ratta and Dana and there is no son named Dalla. Being aggrieved with the resolutions, the petitioners have filed these writ petitions. 6. The main contention of the petitioners is that the Gram Sabha of village Anadara has no jurisdiction to pass the impugned resolutions. It is contended that as per sub-section (4) of Section 26 of the Act of 9171, on an application filed by any person aggrieved with the allotment, the Gram Sabha is required to refer the matter for decision to the Gramdan Board and the Gram Sabha cannot pass decision on such application. 7. It is also contended by the petitioners that late Lakha had four sons viz. Ummed Ram, Ratta, Dana and Dalla but the Gram Sabha has wrongly given a finding that late Lakha had only three sons and he had no son named Dalla. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the provisions of the Act of 1971, this Court is of the opinion that as per Section 33 of the Act of 1971, the Gram Sabha is empowered to prepare and maintain village records, including a register giving detail of the lands in the possession of persons under the Gram Sabha. Relevant provisions of Section 33 of the Act of 1971 are reproduced hereunder: "33. Other powers and functions of Gram Sabha.- (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Gram Sabha shall undertake all activities for the welfare of the village community and the members thereof and do all other things incidental thereto. (2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, the Gram Sabha may.-- (a)........ (b)........ (c)....... (d)....... (e) prepare and maintain village records, including a register giving detail of the lands in the possession of persons under the Gram Sabha." 9. The argument made on behalf of the petitioners that the Gram Sabha has to refer the matter to the Gramdan Board for change in the revenue entries is not tenable because it is not a case of allotment of land to any person but a case of change in entries in revenue record and as per above referred provision of the Act of 1971, the Gram Sabha is fully competent to do so. 10. So far as other contention raised on behalf of the petitioners that late Lakha had four sons viz. 10. So far as other contention raised on behalf of the petitioners that late Lakha had four sons viz. Ummed Ram, Ratta, Dana and Dalla is concerned, this Court is of the opinion that the finding of fact recorded by the Gram Sabha vide impugned resolutions is based on the statements given by the villagers and, therefore, it cannot be said that the said finding is not based on any evidence. 11. Consequently, the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.