Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 965 (RAJ)

Hemraj v. Om Prakash

2018-04-09

SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

body2018
JUDGMENT Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J. - The petitioners challenge the order passed by the Board of Revenue Rajasthan Ajmer dated 31.10.2017. 2. Counsel as above appears for all the respondents hence, service is treated to be complete. 3. Both the Counsel were heard at length. They agreed that the case may be decided finally. Accordingly the final arguments were heard. 4. Counsel for the petitioners submits that earlier the respondents had challenged the mutation proceedings whereby the names of the petitioners had been entered in the revenue record and after the death of Nehna the mutation No.529 was opened in the name of Shankar, Hajari & Gopi only vide order dated 03.01.1983 by Tehsildar of Village Uliniya District Sawai Madhopur whereas Nehna had 5 sons and 3 daughters. The case was remanded back by the Board of Revenue to examine the possession of legal heirs and the Tehsildar was asked to pass an order afresh. The Tehsildar vide order dated 22.02.2017 held that all the legal heirs were required to be mentioned in the mutation except Champa Ram and Virya as Champa Ram and Virya went in adoption of Ganglya & Puniya during the lifetime of Nehna. The appeal was preferred by the heirs of grand sons of Champa Ram i.e. sons of Hanuman and daughter of Hanuman alleging that Champa Ram had not gone in adoption of Ganglya but was entitled to be included as legal heirs of Nehna. However, the appeal was dismissed and thereafter revision was filed before the Board of Revenue, Ajmer who vide its order dated 31.10.2017 has held Champa Ram to be the son of Nehna and accordingly directed that Hanuman who is son of Champa should be included and Hajari son of Nehna should be included as legal representatives and mutation should accordingly be opened. Learned Counsel submits that while the Tehsildar and the Divisional Commissioner have rightly held Champa Ram to have gone in adoption, in revision the Board of Revenue has seriously erred in overturning both the orders and including the name of Champa and his inheritors in the mutation relating to the property of Nehna and wrongfully declaring him as son of Nehna. Learned Counsel submits that the Board of Revenue has erred in holding Champa as the only son of Nehna whereas Nehna had 5 sons and 3 daughters. Learned Counsel submits that the Board of Revenue has erred in holding Champa as the only son of Nehna whereas Nehna had 5 sons and 3 daughters. Learned Counsel further submits that the only sister alive of Champa namely Kundni daughter of Nehna has also given a statement before the Tehsildar that Champa had gone into adoption of Ganglya and the Board of Revenue had wrongly considered the said evidence. It is submitted that the evidence of Kundani has not been considered at all and on a presumption that the age of Champa Ram would almost 105 years at the time of affidavit being filed, the Board of Revenue has erred in holding that statements of the witnesses were relating to period before their birth. 5. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondents submits that there was ample documents to show that Champa Ram was son of Nehna and did not go in adoption to Ganglya. Supporting the judgment of Board of Revenue, he has argued that Champa Ram did not receive any property rights of Ganglya nor Champa's inheritors have been included in the mutation of Ganglya. Jagniya is only son of Ganglya who has received the property of Ganglya and, therefore, the Board of Revenues' order cannot be said to be illegal or wrongful. Further he submits that the Board of Revenue has rightly noted that the age of the various witnesses who had given the statements clearly show that they have given evidence relating to facts before their birth. Such evidence could not be considered as relevant and there is no other documents to prove that Champa Ram has gone in adoption to Ganglya and admittedly he was son of Nehna. The Courts below had wrongly assumed that Champa Ram had gone in adoption to Ganglya without there being any such documents on record. It is also pointed out that in another case before Land Revenue Officer, Tonk decided on 20.11.2001 namely Hanuman Vs. Hajari (8/95), Champa has been accepted as son of Nehna and the said judgment had attained finality. This argument which was raised before the Commissioner has been ignored by the Commissioner, while passing his judgment. It is also pointed out that in another case before Land Revenue Officer, Tonk decided on 20.11.2001 namely Hanuman Vs. Hajari (8/95), Champa has been accepted as son of Nehna and the said judgment had attained finality. This argument which was raised before the Commissioner has been ignored by the Commissioner, while passing his judgment. The fact of mentioning by the Board of Revenue of Chmap Ram being the only son who was alive of Nehna, it did not in any manner ignore the fact that there were other sons born to Nehna but all of them expired at that relevant time. Learned Counsel also has taken this Court to the report of Tehsildar Sawai Madhopur dated 16.2.2017 which shows that there was already a division of land amongst the parties and each and everyone was in peaceful possession of its own part of land. The site report dated 20.02.2017 also mentions about the family tree and has placed the same on record by way of an application. 6. Having heard both the Counsel, I find that the report dated 16.12.2017 which has come on record shows that Champalal was son of Nehna. The fact regarding Chmpa, having gone in adoption to Ganglya is not proved and merely on the basis of statement of sister of Champa Ram without there being any documentary proof, it cannot be said that Champa had gone in adoption to Ganglya. Moreover as noted by the Board of Revenue Jagniya was the only son of Ganglya who has inherited the property of Ganglya and there is no mention of Champa Ram in revenue records relating to Ganglya which have been noted by the Board of Revenue in its order. 7. Taking into consideration the above, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order dated 31.10.2017 passed by the Board of Revenue. 8. The writ petition is devoid of merit and the same is dismissed.