Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
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