Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 429 (RAJ)

Karni Singh v. State Revenue

2022-02-09

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, abundant caution is being maintained, while hearing the matters in the Court, for the safety of all concerned. 2. The petitioner has preferred the present petition claiming the following relief: “1. Allow this writ petition. 2. Direct the respondents for making corrections in the revenue entries in relation to Khasras No. 1673 and 1270 pertaining to Samwat Year 2061 situated in Revenue Village Raipur, District Pali.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at the time of resumption of Jagir land, the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1952’) was in operation and accordingly, the land record was prepared. The petitioner's family being a Jagirdar sought possession of certain private properties under Section 23 of the Act of 1952 and after due adjudication, the Jagir Commissioner finalized the list of properties of the petitioner's family and such properties were demarcated as private properties. 4. The bone of contention in the present litigation is the property listed at Serial No. 8 i.e. temple of Narsingh Ji including two wells and a Bavdi and land pertaining to said temple with a chowk and trees, is situated in Khasra No. 1673 and the other property listed at Serial No. 11 i.e. the temple of Karni Mata Ji alongwith Dharamshala, chowk and wells and trees, which is situated in Khasra No. 1270. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, the grandson and legal heir of the original Jagirdar, and his family were enjoying the peaceful possession of the aforesaid two properties, but when they sought to make a construction on the said properties in the year 2010, they was restrained from the same on the count that the properties belonged to the State. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has shown the certified copy of the land record, which is Annexure-2 of the present petition, in which, both the properties situated at Khasra No. 1673 and Khasra No. 1270 are reflected to be the properties of the petitioner's family including both the temples. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further demonstrated from the record that the position of Jagir Commissioner's demarcation was never challenged by the State and thus, attained finality. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further demonstrated from the record that the position of Jagir Commissioner's demarcation was never challenged by the State and thus, attained finality. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent State, however, submits that though both the properties have been declared by Jagir Commissioner as private properties of the petitioner's family, at the time of verification of the properties in question, the concerned officer of the State had only verified the property regarding the temple of Karni Mata Ji as private property, and had not verified the property regarding the temple of Narsingh Ji. The record depicting the same has been produced. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that the verification process was critical to the determination of properties as either publicly owned or privately owned, and that the necessary determination of the list of properties so owned, was made by the Jagir Commissioner and sent to the Tehsildar, Raipur whereby it was found that the properties in question i.e. the temple of Narsinghji and its appurtenant has not been verified as private property, but as public property, and that the concerned Tehsildar has filed his comments for the same as well, and that the entire procedure was conducted in accordance with law. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent also fairly submits that no challenge is made to the determination made by the Jagir Commissioner. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that the temples in question are public properties/places and therefore, declaring them to be of a private ownership at this stage shall be depriving not only the public at large from the temples in-question, but also shall be infringed the rights connected with the faith of the people that reside around. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent however fairly submits that as per the queries made by him to the officer-in-Charge, the temple of Narsingh Ji is being widely used by the public, whereas the temple of Karni Mata Ji is not used by the public and is in fact, in the direct possession of the petitioner's family. 11. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent however fairly submits that as per the queries made by him to the officer-in-Charge, the temple of Narsingh Ji is being widely used by the public, whereas the temple of Karni Mata Ji is not used by the public and is in fact, in the direct possession of the petitioner's family. 11. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case, this Court finds that the land record, at Annexure-2, clearly shows that the properties in question i.e. temple of Narsingh Ji and the appurtenant, are situated in Khasra No. 1673 and temple of Karni Mata Ji is situated in Khasra No. 1270 are entered in the name of the petitioner's family. 12. This Court also takes note of the fact that the learned counsel for the respondent State is however unable to refute that the land record, at Annexure-2, clearly indicates that the petitioner is the owner of the aforesaid properties in question. 13. This Court observes, from the record as well as from the submissions so made, that the determination made by the Jagir Commissioner has attained finality and the same in accordance with the Section 23 of the Act of 1952. The submissions made by learned counsel for the respondent-State before this Court that the land revenue officer concerned has verified only one of the two properties of the petitioner, as is clearly reflected from the record that the property of temple of Narsingh Ji was not verified as private property of the petitioner by the concerned revenue officer whereas the temple of Karni Mata was verified by the concerned revenue officer as private property of the petitioner. 14. This Court further observes that, given the factual contradiction to the verification, of the properties in question, cannot be determined by this Court in its writ jurisdiction and thus, no relief can be granted to the petitioner pertaining to the temple of property in question i.e. the temple of Narsingh Ji, even when the learned counsel for the petitioner made a categorical submission that other non-verified properties have been included as private properties. 15. 15. This Court accepts the submissions made by learned counsel for the respondent State, that the non-verified properties ought not to be treated as private properties of the petitioner, as the petitioner has not shown as to whether he contested the non-verification of the said property in question, by the concerned revenue authority at any stage. 16. In light of the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is partly allowed to the extent the relief so sought by the petitioner, pertaining to the Khasra No. 1270 of temple of Karni Mata Ji is accepted and it directed that the same shall be treated as a private property of the petitioner in accordance with the adjudication made by the Jagir Commissioner under Section 23 of the Act of 1952, as well as the determination made by the concerned Tehsildar/Revenue Authority, Raipur whereas the relief pertaining to the Khasra No. 1673 of temple of Narsingh Ji is denied and thus, not allowed. 17. This Court also observes that the State record, which has been annexed alongwith the writ petition, depicting the status of two properties in question i.e. temple of Nursing Ji situated in Khasra No. 1673, which is a non-verified property by the State and temple of Karniji situated in Khasra No. 1270 which is marked as verified private property of the petitioner by the State, shall be strictly abided by the State and accordingly, the non-verified property of Narsingh Ji Temple situated in Khasra No. 1673 shall remain with the State and in regard to the temple of Karni Mata situated in Khasra No. 1270 shall remain as a private property of the petitioner. 18. All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly.