Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 461 (RAJ)

Gopi S/o Shri Ladhu v. State Of Rajasthan

2023-02-09

SAMEER JAIN

body2023
JUDGMENT 1. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner-non-applicant no.4, in the matter of order dated 07.01.2013 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jamwaramgarh in Case No. 20/2008 whereby the application filed by the applicant-respondent no.1 (State) under Section 175 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 has been allowed while terminating the tenancy rights of the original khatedars and the possession of the land in question has been ordered to be taken by the State Government. 2. Against the said order dated 07.01.2013, an appeal bearing No. 58/2013 was preferred by the non-applicant-petitioner before the Revenue Appellate Authority wherein the Revenue Appellate Authority vide order dated 29.06.2016, set aside the order dated 07.01.2013 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jamwaramgarh and dismissed the application filed under Section 175 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 filed by the applicant-respondent no.1 (State), as time barred. 3. Thereafter, against the order dated 29.06.2016 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, an appeal was filed by the applicant-respondent no.1 (State) before the learned Board of Revenue and the same was registered as Appeal No. APD/TA/6466/2017/Jaipur whereby the learned Board of Revenue, vide impugned order dated 07.05.2018, allowed the appeal filed by the applicant-respondent no.1 (State) and set aside the order dated 29.06.2016 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority and upheld the order dated 07.01.2013 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jamwaramgarh. 4. In this background, learned counsel for the non-applicant-petitioner submitted that the land in question bearing Khasra No.66, measuring 37.08 Bigha at Gram Chainpura, Tehsil Jamwaramgarh, District Jaipur was recorded in the name of persons belonging to the Scheduled Tribe; namely Ladhu, Mukunda and Shyochanda. The non-applicant-petitioner and the private respondents No.2 to 18 are their legal representatives, who as per the version of the non-applicant-petitioner, are still in cultivation and possession of the said land in question since the time of their predecessors. It was further contended that the applicant-respondent no.1 (Tehsildar, Jamwaramgarh) moved an application under Section 175 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 to resume the khatedari rights and to further take possession of the said land in question by the Government, on the basis of two sale deeds dated 26.08.1966 and 08.08.1972. It was further contended that the applicant-respondent no.1 (Tehsildar, Jamwaramgarh) moved an application under Section 175 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 to resume the khatedari rights and to further take possession of the said land in question by the Government, on the basis of two sale deeds dated 26.08.1966 and 08.08.1972. The said application was moved on account of the fact that the aforementioned sales were prohibited by virtue of Section 42(b) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, as the same were made to individuals who did not belong to the ST Community. It was further contended that the application under Section 175 of the Act of 1955 was filed on 01.06.2006, which is directly hit by the bar of limitation according to Section 214 of the said Act wherein as per Serial No. 66 of Schedule III appended to the Act of 1955, from the date of a sale deed, the maximum time within which an application under Section 175 can be filed is thirty years. Therefore, considering the fact that the application was filed by the applicant-respondent no.1 on 01.06.2006; the same was delayed by a period of 3 and 37 years from the date of the first and second sale deeds, respectively. 5. Furthermore, learned counsel submitted that the actual possession of the land in question is with the non-applicant-petitioner and the original possession of the said land was never delivered by the original khatedars and the same is presently continuing with their legal representatives. It was also submitted that in the present case, execution of both the sale deeds was denied by the non-applicant-petitioner. Moreover, learned counsel also submitted that both the sale deeds, dated 26.08.1966 and 08.08.1972, are illegal and void and therefore, cannot be relied upon by the Court. In this regard, learned counsel apprised the Court of the fact that the Civil Court vide its order(s) dated 24.02.2010 and 15.01.2013 had passed appropriate orders declaring the said sale deeds as void. Learned counsel also submitted that the possession of the subsequent purchasers under the said sale deeds was never proved and no appeal was filed by the said purchasers against the order of dispossession. Moreover, even the Revenue Record reflects the original khatedars and their representatives to be in possession of the land in question. Learned counsel also submitted that the possession of the subsequent purchasers under the said sale deeds was never proved and no appeal was filed by the said purchasers against the order of dispossession. Moreover, even the Revenue Record reflects the original khatedars and their representatives to be in possession of the land in question. Accordingly, learned counsel for the non-applicant-petitioner reiterated that the Board of Revenue, while passing the impugned order, overlooked the necessary considerations pertaining to the bar of limitation and the factum of the possession of the said land in dispute. Therefore, in light of the same, it was urged that the impugned order dated 07.05.2018 is liable to be quashed and set aside. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the applicant-respondent no.1, who is the main contesting party in the present dispute, submitted that the original khatedars sold their respective land through registered sale deed dated 26.08.1966 to Sh. Badluwa (s/o Mataiya); the mutation of which was accepted by the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Saypura on 31.03.1968. However, the said sale deed was in violation of Section 42 of the Act of 1955 as the transfer was inter-se between members of the Schedule Tribe and Schedule Caste, which is statutorily prohibited by law. Thereafter, it was submitted that the purchaser, Sh. Badluwa, further sold the land to Bhanwar Lal (s/o Ladu Ram) vide sale deed dated 08.08.1972; which was also in contravention of Section 42 of the Act of 1955. In this background, learned counsel submitted that the mutation entries No.3 and No.20 dated 31.03.1968 and 25.07.1976 respectively, made by the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, could not be entered into the Revenue Record. 7. Thereafter, it was submitted that on account of the death of the original khatedar, namely Sh. Mukunda, the mutation was opened in the name of their legal representatives vide mutation No. 182 dated 20.03.2006. Accordingly, when the fact of the transfer of the land by its original khatedars came into the knowledge of applicant-respondent no.1, he preferred an application under Section 175 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 for the cancellation of both the sale deeds and mutation entries opened in pursuance thereof and to take possession of the land in favour of the Government. In light of the said submissions, it was urged that the proceedings initiated under Section 175 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 were justified and the learned Board of Revenue, after duly taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, passed a well-reasoned order. 8. In support of his contentions, learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Chhail Singh & Ors. vs. State of Raj. & Ors. : 2008(2) DNJ (Raj.) 683 wherein it was held that the date of knowledge is the relevant date for computing the period of limitation; which in the given case is 20.03.2006. Reliance was also placed upon the judgment passed by this Court in Chiman Lal vs. State of Raj. & Ors.: 2000(2) WLC 1 along with the dictum of the Apex Court in S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) by L.R. & Ors. vs. Jagannath reported in (1994) 1 SCC 1 . 9. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both the sides, scanned the record of the writ petition and perused the judgment(s) cited at Bar. 10. Upon a perusal of the impugned order, it is observed that the learned Board of Revenue has categorically eluded the addressal and consideration of certain germane contentions raised by the non-applicant-petitioner, which are instrumental in the just and efficacious disposal of the present dispute; including the applicability of Section 214 read with Schedule III Entry No.66 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 for determining the question of limitation qua the application filed by the applicant-respondent no.1 under Section 175 of the said Act of 1955. Furthermore, no specific finding has been given by the learned Board of Revenue regarding the question of possession of the disputed land with the original khatedars and their legal representatives; as opposed to the possession with the subsequent purchasers of the said land. Moreover, the learned Board of Revenue did not provide any justified reasons in order to address the question of the effect of non-filing of an appeal by the subsequent purchasers, who were allegedly deemed to be dispossessed of the land in question. 11. Moreover, the learned Board of Revenue did not provide any justified reasons in order to address the question of the effect of non-filing of an appeal by the subsequent purchasers, who were allegedly deemed to be dispossessed of the land in question. 11. Therefore, in light of the observations made herein-above, this Court deems it appropriate to set aside the order dated 07.05.2018 passed by the learned Board of Revenue and remand the matter back to the learned Board to adjudicate upon the same afresh, after duly taking into consideration the observations made herein-above. 12. The parties would be at liberty to raise their appropriate contentions and written submissions before the learned Board of Revenue within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of this order. Thereafter, in compliance of the principles of natural justice, the learned Board of Revenue shall adjudicate upon the matter within a period of six months. 13. The status-quo, as on date, be maintained by the parties till the disposal of the matter by the learned Board of Revenue. 14. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of in above terms. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of