Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1563 (RAJ)

Kailash Bunkar v. State of Rajasthan

2023-08-18

GANESH RAM MEENA

body2023
ORDER : Ganesh Ram Meena, J. The petitioners have preferred the present writ petition with a prayer to direct the respondents to sanction the mutation in favour of the petitioners in compliance with the decision dated dated 27.05.2015 passed by the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer (for short 'the Second Appellate Authority') in Appeal No.5501/ 2012/ Jaipur (Kailash & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.). 2. The brief facts of the case are that Sualal and Shrawanlal both sons of Gyarsilal @ Balya filed a suit No.471/2002 for declaration of khatedari rights and permanent injunction before the Court of Sub Divisional Officer, Amber (for short 'the trial court') with the averments that the family members of the plaintiffs Moti @ Motya s/o Laxman adopted Shri Gyarsilal @ Balya, father of plaintiffs Sualal and Shrawanlal. Moti @ Motya expired in the year 1962 and Gyarsilal @ Balya also expired in the year 1979. The land bearing Khasra No.173 measuring 8 Bigha 8 Biswa and Khasra No. 174 measuring 3 Bigha 10 Biswa (for short 'the land in question') were in cultivatory possession of Shri Gyarsilal @ Balya- the father of the plaintiffs and the grandfather Moti @ Motya since the time of Jagirdar. It was further stated that the predecessors of the plaintiffs are in continuous possession of the land in question since prior to Samavat 2005 and they have also dug a well and constructed a mud hut (kachha jhonpda) and are residing there. It was further stated that at the time of commencement of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act of 1955') the predecessors of the plaintiffs were in cultivatory possession of the land as a tenant and therefore, in view of the provisions of the Act of 1955, they got the khatedari rights but the Settlement Officers in-stead of recording the land in the name of Moti @ Motya, wrongly entered the land as a government land in the category of 'pasture land'. Such entry of the land in question as a pasture land is illegal and arbitrary. It was further stated that when the plaintiffs came to know that the land has been wrongly recorded as a government land, they filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction. 3. Such entry of the land in question as a pasture land is illegal and arbitrary. It was further stated that when the plaintiffs came to know that the land has been wrongly recorded as a government land, they filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction. 3. The defendant No.2- Gram Panchayat, Rampura, in place of filing the written statement submitted a letter of the Gram Panchayat, referred to the Sub Divisional Officer, Amber, wherein it was stated that the land in question is being used as a pasture land since past 30 years and the plaintiffs are trying to take over the land illegally. The proceedings under Section 91 of the Land Revenue Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act of 1956') were also initiated against the plaintiffs and prayed to dismiss the suit. 4. The defendant No.1-State of Rajasthan even after several opportunities being allowed did not submit the written statement and the opportunity for submitting the written statement qua the defendant No.1 was closed on 22.04.2000. The defendant No.2- Gram Panchayat, Rampura, also after submitting the letter did not appear before the trial court and ex-parte proceedings were ordered on 06.05.1999 against it. 5. The plaintiffs submitted certain documentary evidence and also oral evidence of four witnesses namely; Sualal, Mangla Ram, Shyam Lal and Shrawan, whereas for defendant No.2, oral evidence of Ram Singh Bareth- Halka Patwari was recorded. After filing of the suit, the land was ordered to be vested with the Jaipur Development Authority (for short 'the JDA'). 6. The trial Court vide its judgment dated 09.07.2002 dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. 7. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 09.07.2002 passed by the trial court, the plaintiffs Sualal and legal representatives of plaintiff Shrawanlal filed an Appeal No.26/2005 under Section 223 of the Act of 1955 before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaipur (for short 'the First Appellate Authority'). The First Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal vide its judgment dated 05.06.2012. 8. On being aggrieved by the judgment dated 05.06.2012 passed by the First Appellate Authority and the judgment dated 09.07.2002 passed by the trial Court, the legal representatives of plaintiff Shrawanlal preferred an Appeal No. 5501/2012/Jaipur, before the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer (for short 'the Second Appellate Authority') under Section 224 of the Act of 1955. 8. On being aggrieved by the judgment dated 05.06.2012 passed by the First Appellate Authority and the judgment dated 09.07.2002 passed by the trial Court, the legal representatives of plaintiff Shrawanlal preferred an Appeal No. 5501/2012/Jaipur, before the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer (for short 'the Second Appellate Authority') under Section 224 of the Act of 1955. The Second Appellate Authority vide its judgment and decree dated 27.05.2015 allowed the appeal and decreed the suit filed by the plaintiffs. The operative portion of the Judgment is reproduced as under:- ^^8- vihykaVl }kjk izLrqr ;g f}rh; vihy Lohdkj dh tkrh gS jktLo vihy izkfèkdkjh t;iqj ds fu.kZ;@fMØh fnukda 05-06-2012 ,oa mi&[kaM vfèkdkjh vkesj ds fu.kZ;@fMØh fnukda 09-07-2002 dks fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA oknhx.k o izk:fid jsLikaWMsaV la[;k 4 o 5 dks crkSj jsdkWMZ [kljk uacj 173 jdck 8 ch?kk 7 fcLok o [kljk ucaj 174 jdck 3 ch?kk 10 fcLok okds xzke jkeiqjk rglhy vkesj u;s [kljk ucaj 410 yxk;r 413 esa ls mDr Hkfwe dk [kkrsnkj dk'rdkj ?kksf"kr fd;k tkrk gS rn~uqlkj jktLo fjdkMZ esa uke vf/kd`r fd;k tk;sA lkFk gh izfroknhx.k dks LFkk;h fu"ksèkkKk ls ikcan fd;k tkrk gS fd os oknhx.k dh bl mDr [kkrsnkjh dh vkjkth esa dCts dk'r esa etkger] csn[kyh vkfn mRiUu ugha djsaA** 9. The Second Appellate Authority vide its order dated 19.05.2016 made a correction of the name of Village 'Rampura' to be replaced by Village 'Tatiawas' in its judgment dated 27.05.2015. 10. Against the judgment of the Second Appellate Appellate Authority, the JDA as well as the State of Rajasthan filed separate writ petitions (SBCW P.No. 18579/2019- filed by the JDA and SBCW P.No.16471/2019 filed by the State of Rajasthan) and both the writ petitions have now been dismissed by a separate common order. 11. It is obligatory duty of the State Authorities, its instrumentalities and other undertaking institutions to comply with the orders/ directions of the Courts. Since the Second Appellate Authority has passed the judgment dated 27.05.2015 declaring the petitioners/ plaintiffs as khatedars of the land in question, the revenue authorities are under an obligation to take further necessary action for compliance of the Judgment dated 27.05.2015 passed by the Second Appellate Authority and to alter the revenue record accordingly. 12. Since the Second Appellate Authority has passed the judgment dated 27.05.2015 declaring the petitioners/ plaintiffs as khatedars of the land in question, the revenue authorities are under an obligation to take further necessary action for compliance of the Judgment dated 27.05.2015 passed by the Second Appellate Authority and to alter the revenue record accordingly. 12. In view of the above facts and the circumstances of the case, this Court deems just and proper to direct the respondents to make compliance of the judgment dated 27.05.2015 passed by the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer in Appeal No.5501/ 2012/ Jaipur (Kailash & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) in true letter and spirit by making proper entries in the revenue record within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. 13. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. 14. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.