Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 99 (RAJ)

Veeru Ram v. Kanta

2020-01-09

ARUN BHANSALI

body2020
ORDER : Arun Bhansali, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners aggrieved against judgment dated 24.08.2011 passed by S.D.O., Hanumangarh, judgment dated 31.07.2013 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Hanumangarh and judgment dated 26.06.2018 passed by Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer, whereby, the suit filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 3 has been decreed and the appeals filed by petitioners before the Revenue Appellate Authority & the Board of Revenue have been dismissed, respectively. 2. A suit was filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 3 - plaintiffs with the averments that they were daughters of deceased Faturam and alongwith Mukesh Kumar were born to Smt. Phuli; Faturam had contracted second marriage after coming into force of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ('Act of 1955'); Mst. Chidi and Lachho were born to deceased Faturam through Harkauri, his first wife; it was claimed that the plaintiffs were in possession of 9 bigha land belonging to deceased Faturam and sought declaration & injunction qua the said piece of land. 3. It was claimed that the land ad measuring 25 bigha in Chak No. 7 JDW, Stone No. 79/231, Murabba No. 39, Killa Nos. 1 to 25 was allotted to deceased Faturam under provisions of Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 ('the Act of 1954'); Faturam during his life time transferred 7 bigha land and out of 18 bigha land the plaintiffs were entitled to 9 bigha land being illegitimate children in view of provisions of Section 16 of the Act of 1955. 4. The suit was resisted by the defendants, inter alia, with the submissions that the land in question was allotted to deceased Faturam alongwith his wife Harkauri and daughter Mst. Chidi and, therefore, Faturam had only 8 bigha and few biswa land, out of which, he had transferred 7 bigha land during his lifetime and, therefore, only 1 bigha and few biswa land was left and, therefore, the plea raised was resisted. 5. Several other submissions were raised, based on which, the S.D.O. framed as many as 8 issues and deciding the same, decreed the suit. 6. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners filed an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority. 7. The Revenue Appellate Authority by exhaustively dealing with all the aspects raised, dismissed the appeal. 8. Feeling aggrieved, the second appeal was filed before the Board of Revenue. 9. 6. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners filed an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority. 7. The Revenue Appellate Authority by exhaustively dealing with all the aspects raised, dismissed the appeal. 8. Feeling aggrieved, the second appeal was filed before the Board of Revenue. 9. The Board of Revenue by its judgment noticing the facts and determination made by two courts below, came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs were entitled to half share of 18 bigha land left by Faturam and that both the courts below did not commit any mistake in decreeing the suit/dismissing the appeal and, consequently, dismissed the second appeal. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners emphasized that it is not in dispute that the allotment under the Act of 1954 was made in the name of Faturam, Mst. Harkauri and Chidi - wife & daughter of deceased Faturam and, therefore, Faturam had limited share, out of which, he had transferred 7 bigha of land during his life time and, therefore, in rest of the land only the petitioners had right and, therefore, determination made by the S.D.O., Revenue Appellate Authority and Board of Revenue deserves to be set aside. 11. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the orders passed by three courts below and emphasized that the findings of facts have been recorded, which do not call for any interference by this Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 12. It was submitted that the plea raised regarding the land having been allotted to Faturam, Mst. Harkauri and Chidi are baseless as has been determined by this Court in Pema Ram v. Div. Commissioner & Ors. : S.B.C.W.P. No. 1583/1997, decided on 18.08.2015, which has been upheld by the Division Bench in LRs of Haru @ Hari Ram v. Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner & Ors. : D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 32/2017, decided on 18.04.2017. 13. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 14. The facts are not in dispute whereby the land in question was allotted to Faturam and in the certificate names of Mst. Harkauri & Chidi were also indicated. The plaintiff and defendant No. 4 were children of deceased Faturam through his second wife Phuli and the other defendants were children of Mst. Harkauri. 15. 14. The facts are not in dispute whereby the land in question was allotted to Faturam and in the certificate names of Mst. Harkauri & Chidi were also indicated. The plaintiff and defendant No. 4 were children of deceased Faturam through his second wife Phuli and the other defendants were children of Mst. Harkauri. 15. In view of provisions of the Act of 1955 the plaintiffs had share in the property of deceased Faturam. The only issue pressed by learned counsel for the petitioners pertained to the fact that as the certificate indicated names of Harkaru & Chidi alongwith Faturam, all the 3 had equal share in the property and as Faturam, during his life time had transferred 7 bigha of land, hardly anything was left for being partitioned between the children of deceased Faturam. 16. The said issue raised by learned counsel for the petitioners based on names indicated in the allotment letter has no substance as laid down by this Court in the case of Pema Ram (supra), wherein, while considering similar issue it was, inter alia, laid down as under:- "A perusal of the document pertaining to allotment Annexure-1 reveals that the same has been titled as land allotment certificate for displaced persons settled on land in Ganganagar district; the same bears the name of Bhikha Ram and under the heading other members of family besides name of Bhikha Ram with relationship as self names of Tulsi, Haru and Pemi with relationship as wife, son and mother respectively have been indicated; in the certificate itself there is an affidavit by the head of the family inter-alia indicating that the members stated in the certificate were his dependants and none of them was allotted land elsewhere and all of them including head were genuine displaced persons. This Court while dealing with a similar nature certificate under the provisions of the Act, in the case of Satnam Singh (supra) held and observed as under: "4. In my opinion, none of the contentions has any force. It is quite clear from the allotment certificate Ex. A/2 that the lands in dispute were allotted solely in the name of Pathanasingh. No doubt, Ex. A/2 contains the names of the other members of the family of the allottee but that does not mean that the lands were allotted to all of them. It is quite clear from the allotment certificate Ex. A/2 that the lands in dispute were allotted solely in the name of Pathanasingh. No doubt, Ex. A/2 contains the names of the other members of the family of the allottee but that does not mean that the lands were allotted to all of them. A careful reading of the allotment certificate shows that the names of the other members of the family were mentioned therein in order to show that none of the them was allotted any land elsewhere. This is clearly borne out from the affidavit attached below the allotment certificate in which Pathanasingh had declared that the above stated members or dependents had not been allotted lands elsewhere and further that all of them including Pathanasingh were genuine displaced persons. Similarly, in the Basic Register Ex. A/1, Pathanasingh has been mentioned as the person to whom the land has been allotted. There is no other evidence on the record which goes to show that Pathanasingh was not the allottee but the land was allotted to all the members of his family. Moreover, Pathanasingh in the agreement clearly described himself to be the owner of the land. There is thus no force in the argument that Pathanasingh was not the sole allottee and the lands sold were allotted to all the members of his family." From the above, it is apparent that it has been categorically laid down that merely because names of other members of the family of the allottee has been indicated in the certificate, does not make them allottees and the land belongs to the person in his individual capacity. So far as judgment in the case of Bakhu Ram (supra) is concerned, a perusal of the judgment indicates that the dispute in the said writ petition did not pertain to the original allottee as the original allottee was Lakhu S/o. Dariya and the dispute arose after death of Lakhu S/o. Dariya and his mother Mst. Keshri Wd/o Dariya amongst brothers of Lakhu S/o. Dariya and therefore, the judgment in the case of Bakhu Ram (supra) has no application to the facts of the present case. In view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Satnam Singh (surpa), it will be deemed that under allotment certificate (Annex. Keshri Wd/o Dariya amongst brothers of Lakhu S/o. Dariya and therefore, the judgment in the case of Bakhu Ram (supra) has no application to the facts of the present case. In view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Satnam Singh (surpa), it will be deemed that under allotment certificate (Annex. 1), it was Bhikha Ram, who was the sole owner of the land allotted under the provisions of the Act and on his death on 16.2.1988, the succession would be governed by provisions of Section 8 of the H.S. Act, under which the wife, sons and daughters are entitled as first class heirs to equal share and therefore, in those circumstances, the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner dated 27.2.1997 cannot be sustained and the same, therefore, deserves to be set-aside." 17. The judgment in the case of Pema Ram (supra) has been upheld by the Division Bench in the case of LRs of Haru @ Hari Ram (supra), wherein, it was observed as under- "Learned Single Bench after taking into consideration all facts of the case arrived at the conclusion that the allotment certificate was in the name of Shri Bhikha Ram and, therefore, he was the sole owner of the land allotted under the Act of 1954, as such, the further partition of the land was to be made as per provisions of Section 8 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has reiterated the arguments which was urged before learned Single Bench. As per learned counsel, the reference of the names of the relatives of Late Shri Bikha Ram in the year of allotment clearly indicates that allotment was made to each individual and not only to Shri Bhika Ram. True it is, in the year of allotment Bhikha Ram is shown as head of the family and names of other family members are also given but the order aforesaid is quite clear that allotment was made only in favour of Bhikha Ram and names of other persons in the family were given only to determine area of allotment that was to be allotted. In entirety, we do not find that the conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Bench that the land was allotted to Shri Bhikha Ram and that was required to be partitioned by adhering the provisions of Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The appeal, as such, is having no merit hence, is dismissed." 18. As the fundamental plea raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners already stands settled by judgments of this Court and rest of the findings are findings of facts, which have been concurrently found by three authorities below, no case for interference is made out in the present writ petition, the same is, therefore, dismissed.