Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 41 (RAJ)

Madhukant v. State of Rajasthan

2022-01-06

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2022
JUDGMENT : Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. 1. In wake of instant surge in COVID-19 cases and spread of its highly infectious Omicron variant, lawyers have been advised to refrain from coming to the Courts. 2. The writ petition has been preferred claiming the following relief :- "(a) It is therefore humbly prayed that the auction proceedings in pursuance of order dated 06.02.2012 (annexure-9) may kindly be quashed and set aside, and in pursuance of the order dated 17.12.02 (annx. 1), the respondents may kindly be restrained to dispossesses the petitioner from the land in question and also to handover the possession of the said land to the auction purchaser. (b) That the respondents may kindly be directed to act in accordance with the order dated 17.12.2002 and to make requisite amendment in revenue records in pursuance of the said order." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that one Ghisulal was the recorded khatedar, to the extent of 1/3rd share i.e. 8 biswa 7 biswansi - 9600 square feet (also referred to as 'land in question), of a land in Araji No. 51 min Rakba 1.05 bigha situated in Revenue Village Charniya Patwar Halka Kamali, Tehsil Devgarh, District Rajsamand. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the said khatedar-Ghisulal move an application under Section 90-B of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1956') before the Authorized officer, Land Regularization (Tehsildar), Devgarh seeking to surrender the land in question; whereupon the authorized officer, vide order dated 17.12.2002 passed on the said application, while accepting such surrender of the land, directed that in the revenue record, the said entire land in question be recorded in the name of Municipality, Devgarh. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that in the aforementioned application, the said khatedar-Ghisulal also make a reference regarding an agreement to sell made in favour of one Smt. Girija. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in pursuance of the aforementioned proceedings under Section 90B of the Act of 1956, the revenue record was created for the purpose of conversion of the entire 9600 square feet of land in question. 7. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in pursuance of the aforementioned proceedings under Section 90B of the Act of 1956, the revenue record was created for the purpose of conversion of the entire 9600 square feet of land in question. 7. As per learned counsel, the dispute arose when the petitioner raised an issue to the effect that the concerned revenue officer erroneously recorded the entire 8.7 Biswa land in question, as Abadi land, whereas only 1.6 biswa of land could have been recorded as Abadi land. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in pursuance of aforementioned order dated 17.12.2002, a lease-deed was issued on 02.04.2003 under Section 90B of the Act of 1956 in favour of Smt. Girija, which was registered on 24.12.2009. It is peculiar to note here that the lease-deed does not contain measurement of the land in question. However, as per learned counsel, the petitioner has purchased the land from Smt. Girija vide registered sale deed dated 18.02.2011, wherein measure of the land purchased was shown as 4608 square feet. Learned counsel also submits that the land purchased by the petitioner was thereafter, put to auction, under certain recovery proceedings against Khatedar-Shri Ghisulal, despite the fact that he had completely surrendered the agricultural land, and the patta was issued accordingly. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that thereafter, on 02.05.2012, the petitioner filed an application before the District Collector, Rajsamand, whereupon an inquiry was carried out by the Sub Divisional officer, Devgarh, and thereafter, the report of such inquiry was submitted on 28.08.2012, indicating therein that by mistake only 1.6 biswa land (out of the land in question) could have been recorded in the name of Municipality Devgarh, and the remaining land, in respect whereof no entries could have been made, can be subjected to auction proceedings. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that part of the land has wrongly been recorded in favour of Shri Ghisulal, in view of the fact that he had already surrendered the complete land in question, which is clearly reflected in the subsequent communication (dated 24.09.2012) of the Sub Divisional officer, Devgarh, and thus, at the threshold, the auction in question itself was erroneous. As per learned counsel, the auction sale in question, however, was conducted, and the same was confirmed in favour of the purchaser Bheru Lal (respondent) vide purchase certificate dated 06.02.2012 issued in his favour. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court towards the patta, the registered sale-deed and other documents including the inquiry report (Annex.-6) and factual report (Annex. 7), which indicate that since Shri Ghisulal himself did not possess any land in his own name, therefore, auctioning his land in view of his so called liability was unlawful. 12. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that challenge to the purchase certificate dated 06.02.2012 by the petitioner, which has been issued under Section 251 of the Act of 1956 in pursuance of the recovery of land revenue to the tune of Rs. 2,90,439/- instituted by Rajasthan Khadi and Gramodhyog Board, Jaipur against the defaulter, Shri Ghisulal was perfectly in accordance with law. 13. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that the defaulter Shri Ghisulal is having 141/747 share in the land situated at Village Charniya in Khasra No. 51, and thus, the attachment order in respect of said land dated 06.01.2011 and consequential auction were correct in the eye of law. 14. Learned counsel for the respondent also submits that as per Section 247 of the Act of 1956, the petitioner had an alternate remedy to challenge the purchase certificate in question. 15. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that the erroneous entry if at all made, then the petitioner or Shri Ghisulal ought to have taken the necessary steps for rectification thereof, but the same has never done by them. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioner, thereafter, in his rejoinder arguments, submits that since the title of Smt. Girija was clear and the same was in relation to the complete land, therefore, liability, if any, to be discharged by Shri Ghisulal, could not have been saddled in respect of the land in question, as the patta of the same was issued in favour of Smt. Girija and the petitioner has stepped into shoes of Smt. Girija, and thus, the loss of the auction amount or the land in question was unlawfully caused to the present petitioner. 17. 17. After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the record of the case, this Court is not satisfied that the wrongful entry, in the revenue record, has culminated into the auction proceedings for the land belonging to Shri Ghisulal. Shri Ghisulal has surrendered a part of the land, but certainly the patta issued in favour of Smt. Girija did not have any measurement, and thus, the same cannot be enforced for a particular size of land under the sole proprietorship/title of Smt. Girija, followed by the present petitioner, who is said to have stepped into her shoes. 18. This Court is of the firm opinion that the auction of the land of Ghisulal from the record does not indicate any illegality and for the portion of the land already surrendered by Ghisulal, a valid patta has been issued, and thus, the petitioner can continue to enjoy the same, but at the same time, the proceeding of issuing purchase certificate dated 06.02.2012 in favour of auction purchaser Bheru Lal (respondent) cannot be challenged under the writ jurisdiction. 19. This Court also takes note of the fact that the petitioner has already paid the necessary amount to the auction purchaser and thus, claims to be the owner of the land auctioned in favour of the auction purchaser. The strength of the observation is the application preferred by the auction purchaser that he has received the amount in question from the petitioner and does not claim the auctioned land. 20. Thus, in view of the above, no interference in the purchase certificate in question is made out. 21. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.