Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 321 (RAJ)

Suresh Kumar v. Omprakash

2025-02-12

VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

body2025
Order : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 29.10.2024 passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer, whereby, the appeal preferred by the respondent No.1 has been allowed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are khatedar-tenant of the land which was sold to respondent No.1 by their father. He further submits that since the petitioners were khatedar of the land, which was ancestral in nature, therefore, their father respondent No.2 was having no right to sell the land to the respondent No.1. He also submits that learned Board of Revenue has wrongly appreciated the facts and despite there being admission of the respondent No.1 that the land was an ancestral land, the matter has been remanded back to the Revenue Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the Board of Revenue has committed an error while remanding the matter back to the Revenue Court on the question of adjudicating the validity of the sale made by petitioners’ father- respondent No.2 to respondent No.1. He also submits that the question of sale made by the respondent No.2 to respondent No.1 cannot be adjudicated by the Revenue Court and the matter could not have been remanded back to the Revenue Court as the jurisdiction lies to the Civil Court to adjudicate upon the question as to whether the sale made by the petitioners’ father- respondent No.2 to the respondent No.1 was correct or not. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition may be allowed and the order dated 29.10.2024 may be quashed and set aside. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submits that the petitioners are the sons of respondent No.2 and because of the collision between the two parties, a decree was passed by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate and the appeal preferred by the respondent No.1 before the Revenue Appellate Authority has also been incorrectly rejected vide order dated 22.06.2011. He further submits that the respondent No.1 has paid the entire sale consideration to the respondent No.2, who was the Karta of the family and because of the collision between the parties, the learned trial Court has passed the decree. He further submits that the respondent No.1 has paid the entire sale consideration to the respondent No.2, who was the Karta of the family and because of the collision between the parties, the learned trial Court has passed the decree. He, therefore, submits that the learned Board of Revenue has correctly adjudicated the matter after appreciation of the facts and has rightly remanded the matter back to the Revenue Court for adjudication afresh after framing proper issues on the point. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition may be dismissed. 6. I have considered the submissions made at the bar and gone through the relevant record of the case. 7. The petitioners have filed a suit against the respondent No.1 and their father respondent No.2 on the ground that the petitioners were khatedar in the ancestral property and the respondent No.2 had no right to sell the property to respondent No.1 as there was no need for the same. Since the petitioners were minor at the relevant point of time, therefore, their consent was not taken and the land was sold to the respondent No.1 without there being any benefit extended to the family members and the sale was made by their father without there being any need. The contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioners on the face of it appears to be fallacious as the petitioners were minor and it has come on record that their father- respondent No.2 has sold the land only in dire need of the situation where some money was required for the wellbeing of his family and he being the Karta was having all the rights to sell the land in question for maintaining his family including the petitioners. 8. A close look of the order passed by the Board of Revenue shows that the issue with respect to the property being ancestral in nature has not really been decided and inference is sought to be made on the ground that the respondent No.2 has acted as Karta of the family, which suggest that the land in question was ancestral in nature and therefore, the same could not have been sold without keeping in mind the welfare of the family. 9. 9. This Court finds that since the concrete issue with respect to the fact that the land sold to the respondent No.1 was ancestral in nature has not been discussed, deliberated and proved, therefore, the Board of Revenue has rightly remanded the matter to the Revenue Court for deciding the question as to whether the land was ancestral in nature or not after assessment of the evidence on the same. 10. In so far as the validity of the sale of land made by the respondent No.2 to respondent No.1 is concerned, the same can be challenged by the petitioners by way of initiating appropriate proceedings before the Civil Court as the Revenue Court has no jurisdiction to deliberate on the point of adjudicating the question of sale made by the respondent No.2 to respondent No.1. 11. In view of the discussion made above, this Court finds no infirmity in the order passed by the Board of Revenue, except the modification made by this Court as held above. 12. The instant writ petition is devoid of any force and the same is therefore, dismissed. 13. The stay application as well as other pending misc.applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.