Loonpuri vs State & Ors on 20 January, 2009

                              1

             S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1054/2006
                  Loonpuri Vs. State & Ors.

Date of Order ::   20th January 2009.

      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

Mr.J.L. Purohit,for the petitioner.
Mr.S.M.Parihar, for the respondents.
                            ....

      By way of this writ petition, the defendant-petitioner

seeks to question the order dated 05.09.2005 as passed by

the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer while dismissing

the revision petition   filed by him against the order dated

02.05.1997 as passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority,

Jodhpur whereby an order for temporary injunction as made

by the Assistant Collector (HQ), Jodhpur on 25.02.1997 was

affirmed.

       The plaintiffs-respondents have filed a revenue suit

essentially with the submissions that they were having 26

bighas and 8 biswas agriculture land comprised in Khasra

No.528 that has an adjoining piece of land      comprised in

Khasra No.540. The plaintiffs have averred that 31 bighas of

land in Khasra No.540 had already been recorded in their

father's name but another piece of 6 bighas and 5 biswas of

land in the same Khasra No.540, though been in possession

of their father and regularised in his favour, remained to be

recorded so. The plaintiffs would, however, assert that they
                                 2

are in cultivatory possession of 37 bighas and 5 biswas of land

comprised Khasra No.540. The plaintiffs have stated that the

defendant-petitioner got allotted certain piece of land, said to

be in Khasra No.540, and on that basis was trying to interfere

with the land in their possession. While seeking the relief of

declaration and perpetual injunction      in the said suit, the

plaintiffs also moved an application for temporary injunction

that was allowed by the learned Trial Court on 25.02.1997 with

the following observations and considerations:-

             ''प र क दल ल ह कक भम ख.न. 540       स पर क
      प त क क श: 31 ब घ व 6 ब घ 5 बबसव क#ल 37 ब घ 5
      बबसव भम ननय न ह#ई र । 31 ब घ भम प र गण क
      ख तद र      ह+ तर 6 ब घ 5 बबसव भम क न नतरण
      तहस लद र न ख ररज कर ददय र ज #न: रर ण1 क स क
      पवच र ध न ह । अप र क पवद न वक ल क कहन ह कक
      ख.न. 540/15 व 540/16 अप र क ख तद र      7 दज8 ह तर
      तर       नकश 7 ह च#क ह । यह ब त ननपव8व द ह कक
      अप र स. 1 ख.न. 540/15 व 540/16 क अमभमलखखत ख तद र
      ह, लककन यह दसर क यह ह कक ख.न. 540 7 प र क 31
      ब घ भम       ख तद र दज8 ह तर 540 7 प र गण; क प त
      क 6 ब घ 5 बबसव भम ननय न ह च#क ह । अप र क
      कहन कक उक भम        ख.न.540 रकब 6 ब घ 5 बबसव क
      मयटशन ख ररज ह च#क ह । पवधध क यह सर प त वयवसर
      ह कक न नतरण fiscal matter ह जजसक द र यह पकट ह त
      ह कक आस        स लग न ककतन वसल करन ह । प र गण;
      क प त भदर       क क 7 ख.न. 540 रकब 6 ब घ 5 बबसव 7
      ननयम त भम क आदश क ननरसत कर न क क य8व ह ब बत
       त वल     र क ई तथय अरव दसत वज पसतत   # नह ह#ए ह ।
      उक ननय न क रद करन हत# रफरस भ लजमबत ह न पकट
      नह ह#आ ऐस सरत 7 प र गण; क प त भदर           क क 7
      ननयम त भम ख.न. 540 रकब 6 ब घ 5 बबसव र प र गण;
      क अधधक र ननदहत ह अगर अप र प र गण क उक भम           र
      स बदखल करत ह त प र गण; क अ रण य कनत ह ग
      प र गण क प त क न       ख.न. 540 7 6 ब घ 5 बबसव भम
      ननय न ह#ई ह अत: प र गण क क 7 पर दषय               ल
      ह। उक        ल7 7 अप र द र पसत#त नय नयक दष नत RRD
      1984 ज 492, RDD 1984 ज 355 इस          ल 7 ल ग नह
      ह त ह+ कय कक द न कक र क स पवव दगसत भम          7 दहत
      ह न क समबनध 7 स कय ह । ऐस सरत 7 उक भम ख.न.
      540 क समबनध 7 प र क हक 7 असर ई ननसध ज र कर
      अप र स. 1 क जररय ननषध ज          बद ककय ज त ह कक
      जब तक व द क ननण8य न ह तब तक पवव दगसत भम             7
      प र गण; क ख.न. 540 क भम क#ल रकब 37 ब घ 5 बबसव
                                  3

      क कबज क शत क भम           7 दखल न त सवय कर7 तर न
      अनय ककस स कर व ।"


      The appeal taken by the petitioner against the order

aforesaid was dismissed by the Revenue Appellate Authority

on 02.05.1997 and the revision petition taken to Board has

been dismissed      by the impugned order dated 05.09.2005.

The learned member of the Board came to the conclusion that

the petitioner had failed to show if the land that was allotted to

him after carving out Khasra No.540/16 was the very same

disputed piece of land and rather, he had failed to show if the

land recorded as Khasra No.540/16 was at all alloted to him.

      In this petition, on 23.09.2008, the learned counsel for

the parties submitted that according to some unconfirmed

information, probably the dispute has been settled between

the parties and the learned counsel were granted time to

complete their instructions; and the matter was further

adjourned on 22.10.2008 and 21.11.2008 for the same

purpose. Learned counsel for the parties, however, express

their inability to specifically state if the parties have arrived at

compromise and have, thus, been heard on merits.

      It has been attempted to be argued on behalf of the

petitioner while challenging the orders aforesaid         that the

plaintiffs have no right in relation to the land in question; they

have failed to produce any regularisation order in their favour;
                                  4

and the petitioner having lawfully been granted the land in

question, deserves not to be deprived of the use of the same

during the pendency of the suit.

         During the course of submissions, learned counsel for

the parties were posed the question about the present status

of the suit if at all pending and in that regard too, learned

counsel expressed their inability to make any submission for

want of necessary information.        Be that as it may, having

examined the orders passed by the learned Revenue Courts,

this Court is satisfied that the application for grant of temporary

injunction has been dealt with and decided on relevant

considerations;     and after finding the      plaintiffs being in

possession of the land in question, the defendant-petitioner

has been restrained from interfering therewith.

         In this matter relating to    interim relief during the

pendency of the suit, when the three Revenue Courts have

found it justified to grant the prayer for temporary injunction

against the petitioner on relevant considerations, the present

one does not appear to be a fit case for any interference in the

extraordinary writ jurisdiction, more particularly when there is

no error apparent on the face of record.

         The writ petition fails and is, therefore, dismissed. No

costs.

                                     (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J.

5

s.soni