Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 478 (RAJ)

Bhalla v. Ganga Ram

2023-02-10

NUPUR BHATI

body2023
JUDGMENT : 1. This Civil Writ Petition has been preferred against; the order dated 08.03.2013 (at Annex-21) passed by the Additional Collector, Sanchore, the judgment dated 01.05.2015 (Annex-22) passed by the learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Pali and the judgment dated 14.01.2016 (at Annex-24) passed by the learned Board of Revenue. 2. The controversy in the present case pertains to a parcel of land situated in purana khasra no. 310 and naya khasra no.135 rakba 18 biswa in village-Veerava, Gram Panchayat-Koriya, Tehsil-Sanchore, District-Jalore. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said parcel of land has been in his family’s cultivatory possession for generations. And that on the basis of such possession, the said parcel of land was allotted in the favour of the petitioner by the Allotment Committee vide allotment order dated 26.06.1965 (at Annex-3), but owing to an error in the order, in place of khasra no. 310, khasra no. 298/8 rakba 14 bigha 10 biswa was mentioned. And that on the basis of such incorrect recording of the khasra number, the milaan kshetraphal was also incorrectly created (at Annex-4). 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in the entries made in the revenue record (at Annex-5) for the khasra no. 310/7, the name was incorrectly mentioned as Veerma s/o Bhoma, and that upon the name Bhoma the name of Chopa was overwritten, whereas it should have been mentioned as Bhalla S/o Bhoma. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner thus submits that in the aforesaid factual backdrop, Veerma was incorrectly declared as the gair khatedaar of the land in question vide the allotment order dated 26.06.1965; on the basis of which transfer of name (namantakaran) (at Annex-6) was done, and Veerma was subsequently declared as the khatedaar of the land situated at khasra no. 350 rakba 18 bighas whereas the petitioner has had continuous cultivatory possession over the land in question. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that as per the fard puch taach (Annex-16) and the mauka fard (Annex-17), the elders of village-Veerava, and others persons stated that no such person named Veeram S/o Chopa ever resided in that village. 7. 350 rakba 18 bighas whereas the petitioner has had continuous cultivatory possession over the land in question. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that as per the fard puch taach (Annex-16) and the mauka fard (Annex-17), the elders of village-Veerava, and others persons stated that no such person named Veeram S/o Chopa ever resided in that village. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents opposes the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners and submitted that the learned Revenue Authorities have after appreciating the evidences on the record and upon looking into the overall facts and circumstances of the present case rightly passed the impugned orders. 8. Heard. Perused the record of the case. 9. This Court observes that a suit was preferred on behalf of the present petitioner-Bhalla S/o Bhoma by his wife-Dhani, before the Additional Collector, Sanchore in Revenue Case No. 37/2004 which was decided vide order dated 21.01.2006; the petitioner’s wife sought to impress upon the learned Revenue Court that she was the sister of Veerma S/o Chopa @ Sarupa and that he had taken up sainthood and could not be located, that he was issueless and had subsequently died and that therefore the land in question, recorded in the name of Veerma, be mutated in her name. The learned Revenue Court dismissed her suit with the finding that other than her own testimony and the testimony of three other witnesses, there was no document or record showing her relation to Veerma, nor anything to suggest that he had died. And that under the provisions of law contained in the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 such land would vest with the State Government. 10. This Court further observes that the land in question came to be sold by Veerma S/o Chopa to the private respondents-Gangaram and Kesaram by way of a registered sale deed dated 28.12.2007 (at Annex-12) against which a complaint (at Annex13) was lodged by one-Bhalarag S/o Bhogaji and pursuant thereto an F.I.R. bearing No. 08/2008 dated 01.02.2008 was lodghed at Police Station-Chitalwana, District Jalore against Veerma, Kesaram, Gangaram, Vabhutaram and Shaitansingh. The said FIR was challenged before this Court and was quashed vide order dated 02.03.2009 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 225/2008 and that instead of exhausting the remedy of revision/appeal against order dated 21.01.2006, the FIR was lodged as an abuse of the process of law. The said FIR was challenged before this Court and was quashed vide order dated 02.03.2009 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 225/2008 and that instead of exhausting the remedy of revision/appeal against order dated 21.01.2006, the FIR was lodged as an abuse of the process of law. 11. This Court further observes that a shudhi abhilekh i.e. correction record deed dated 23.01.2008 (at Annex.18) was also entered into between Veerma and the private respondents. 12. This Court thus finds that Veerma S/o Chopa @ Sarupa has entered into two registered agreements, the first being a registered sale deed and the second a correction record deed, against whom an FIR came to be filed and who had duly contested the FIR by way of filing a petition, being S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No.225/2008 decided on 02.03.2009, and was made party to the said petition before this Court on a previous occasion. Thus, by any means it cannot be inferred/said that Veerma S/o Chopa @ Sarupa was a fictitious person. 13. This Court also observes that the suit preferred by the private respondents before the Additional Collector, Sanchore for declaration of khatedaari rights of the land in question and mutation of entries in the revenue record, the learned Revenue Court upon a consideration of the material on record, found that the registered sale deed dated 28.12.2007 states Veerma s/o Chopa and the same was also mentioned in the jamabandi of the land in question, and therefore, ruled in favour of the private respondents. 14. This Court further observes that the present petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Pali which came to be dismissed vide order dated 01.05.2015 whereby it was held that the present petitioner was unable to prove possession over the land in question and that the khatedaari rights of the land in question were duly vested with the private respondents vide the aforementioned sale deed, and the suit before the Additional Collector, Sanchore as such was preferred for mutation/correction in the revenue record by the private respondents. 15. This Court also observes that the present petitioner then preferred an appeal against the order of the learned R.A.A. before the learned Board of Revenue, Ajmer which also came to be dismissed vide order dated 14.01.2016, after taking into consideration the materials available on record and specifically the aforementioned FIR lodged against Veerma and the private respondents. 15. This Court also observes that the present petitioner then preferred an appeal against the order of the learned R.A.A. before the learned Board of Revenue, Ajmer which also came to be dismissed vide order dated 14.01.2016, after taking into consideration the materials available on record and specifically the aforementioned FIR lodged against Veerma and the private respondents. 16. This Court finds, in light of the observations made hereinabove, that the present petition is without merit and is hereby dismissed. Accordingly, the present stay application also stands dismissed.