1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
:: JUDGMENT ::
Pooran Ram & Anr.
Vs.
The Board of Revenue for Rajasthan at Ajmer & Ors.
D.B.CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO. 685/2001.
Date of Judgment :::: 12th May 2010.
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.SAPRE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI
Mr. J.L.Purohit, for the appellants.
Mr. Sudheer Sharma, for the respondents Nos. 5 to 7.
BY THE COURT: (Per Dinesh Maheshwari, J.)
This special appeal is directed against the order dated
10.05.2001 whereby the learned Single Judge of this Court has
dismissed the writ petition (CWP No.1707/2001) filed by the
petitioners-appellants in challenge to the order dated 05.02.2001 as
passed by the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer (‘the Board’)
in Revision Petition No.175/2000 whereby the Board had affirmed
the order dated 22.09.2000 as passed by the Revenue Appellate
Authority, Hanumangarh (‘the RAA’) in Appeal No.20/2000. By the
order dated 22.09.2000, the RAA had set aside an order dated
13.07.2000 as passed by the Assistant Collector, Rawatsar in the
applications moved by the petitioners-appellants, purportedly under
Section 15-AAA of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (‘the Act of
1955’) seeking khatedari rights in the land in question.
Shorn of unnecessary details, the relevant facts and
background aspects of the matter could be taken into
2
comprehension thus: The petitioners-appellants Pooran Ram and
Saheb Ram and the contesting respondents Mst. Gora, Mst. Gita
and Mst. Barji are the decedents of a common ancestor Gugan Ram
who had five sons: Dula Ram, Dungar Ram, Girdhari, Ganga Ram
and Khumana Ram. The contesting respondents are the daughters
of Dula Ram whereas the petitioners-appellants are the sons of
Dungar Ram. Dula Ram, father of contesting respondents, expired in
the year 1976.
The contesting respondents made an application seeking
khatedari rights per Section 15-AAA of the Act of 1955 in relation to
85 bighas and 10 biswas of agricultural land situated at Chak 5 NWD
and Chak 2 NWD. By an order dated 25.02.1988, the Assistant
Collector partly allowed the application so moved by the contesting
respondents after noticing that their father Dula Ram had been in
cultivatory possession of such 85 bighas and 10 biswas land before
Svt. Year 2012. However, after applying the provisions of Agricultural
Land Ceiling, the Assistant Collector found the applicants, daughters
of Dula Ram, entitled to be granted khatedari rights only in relation
to 43 bighas of command land; and, accordingly, conferred khatedari
rights in relation to 25 bighas of land as comprised in Murraba
No.215/6 at Chak 5 NWD free of cost and 18 bighas of land as
comprised in Murraba No.235/4 at Chak 5 NWD on the price of
Rs.1400/- per bigha. The learned Assistant Collector, however,
declared the remaining part of the land, said to be comprised in
Murraba No.235/4 at Chak 5 NWD and in Murraba Nos.234/60 and
234/61 at Chak 2 NWD, as the government land.
The present appellants preferred an appeal against the said
order dated 25.02.1988 whereupon the matter was remanded to the
3
Assistant Collector who, after remand, proceeded to decide the
matter by the order dated 26.04.1990. The learned Assistant
Collector referred to the submissions made on behalf of the present
appellants that the land situated at Chak 2 NWD was recorded in the
name of their grand father Gugan Ram and after his death, his sons
inherited the tenancy rights; and found that while Dula Ram’s
daughters were not entitled to any land beyond 43 bighas but then,
the sons of Gugan Ram had the rights in relation to 37 bighas of land
situated at Chak 2 NWD; and, after calculating the share available in
relation to the branch of Dungar Ram, father of appellants, held the
appellants entitled to the khatedari rights in relation to 7 bighas and 8
biswas of land and ordered such grant of khatedari rights from out of
the land comprised in Murraba No.234/60 at Chak 2 NWD. The
learned Assistant Collector, however, ordered that the remaining
shall be recorded as the government land.
The aforesaid order dated 26.04.1990 as passed by the
Assistant Collector, Nohar was questioned by way of separate
appeals by the present contesting parties. The learned RAA,
however, dismissed both the appeals by the order dated 09.07.1990.
Against the order so passed by the learned RAA on 09.07.1990, the
contesting respondents, daughters of Dula Ram, preferred a revision
petition (No.122/Ganganagar/1990) before the Board that came to
be decided by the order dated 25.06.1991. The learned Member of
the Board, though approved the orders aforesaid so far granting of
khatedari rights in 43 bighas of land to the daughters of Dula Ram
was concerned but then, did not approve of the other part of the
orders granting khatedari rights to Pooran Ram (appellant) and
declaring the remaining land as government land with the
4
observations that the concerned parties were free to adopt suitable
proceedings in accordance with law but while deciding the
application moved by the applicants (the contesting respondents) no
such directions could have been issued. The learned Member of the
Board said,-
''7-दसर पश यह उठ य गय क इस प र पत न रय
रत समय अध सर नय य लय ! भमम ! र ब र ज घ!ष(त
र अधध र र । मर ष+च र स 15 एएए पर पत !
तय रत समय +ल प र.गर अधध र/ ! ह0 तय क य
ज स त ह1 श( भमम कय ह!ग इस समबनध म5 !ई
न रय मलय ज स त ह1 और !ई आदश ददय ज स त ह1 ।
यदद श( बच ह:ई भमम र जय सर र ! ममल ह1 त! उस
मलय अ :स र ज! य+ ह0 < ज च दहय +ह0
य+ ह0 सर र ! र च दहय। बब इस प र क य ज स त । इस तरह
स परर र म समबनध म5 क स प र आदश इस प र
पत म5 ह0> ददय ज स त । परर र म यदद ख तद र0 अधध र
प पत र अधध र0 ह1 त! उस ! न यम स : र उस मलय
य+ ह0 र ह!ग । इ प र.गर प र पत म5 उस ! क स
प र अधध र ददय ज स य उस पक म5 भमम + ह0> ह1 । इस ध र अनतगत
ऐस !ई भ प +ध ह0> ह1 क क स ए वयकE दर
पर पत पसत:त क य ज पर उस भमम समबनध समसत
अधध र0 समबनध म5 न रय मलय ज य य पर परर+ र !
ख तद र0 द0 ज य। जजस वयकE पर पत पसत:त क य ह1
उस ! ख तद र0 ममल स त ह1 य ह0> और यदद ममल स त ह1
त! क त + I स भमम पर ममल स त ह1, यह न रय ल
इस ध र अनतगत + >छ य ह1 । अत: परर र म + र जय सर र
पक म5 ददय गय न रय ! यम ह0> क य ज स त ।
द! / पक र न यम :स र ज! भ य+ ह0 र स त ह1 +!
र मलय स+तनत ह1 परनत: प र.गर प र पत न रय
रत समय इस अधध र/ पर !ई न रय ह0> मलय ज स त
आदश ददय ज स त ह1 ।
8- इस तरह स यह न गर आ>मश रप स स+ र < ज त ह1 ।
र जय सर र पक म5 भमम र ब र ज घ!ष(त र आदश
तर परर र म पक म5 ददय गय आदश न रसत क य ज त
ह1 । प र.गर पक म5 ददय गय आदश म5 क स हसतकप ह1 । उ ! जजत भमम < ख तद र0 द0 गई ह1
उत ह0 भमम आदश यम रख ज त ह1 ।"
It may be noticed for the purpose of basic factual matrix that
the said order dated 25.06.1991 was attempted to be questioned by
the present respondents by way of a writ petition (CWP
No.3138/1991); however, the said writ petition was withdrawn and
was dismissed as such on 25.02.1997.
5
After passing of the aforesaid order dated 25.06.1991 by the
Board, the present appellants made a claim for conferment of
khatedari rights in the land in question by moving applications under
Section 15AAA ibid; and it is this claim of the appellants which forms
the subject matter of the present appeal. While dealing with the
applications so moved by the appellants, the learned Assistant
Collector, Rawatsar in his order dated 13.07.2000 observed that
112.17 bighas of land had been recorded in the name of Gugan
Ram; and proceeded to hold that the appellants were entitled to be
conferred khatedari rights on the remaining 40 bighas of the land in
question.
The contesting respondents herein, the daughters of Dula
Ram, preferred an appeal before the RAA against the aforesaid
order dated 13.07.2000; and this appeal came to be allowed on
22.09.2000. The learned RAA did not approve of the considerations
adopted by the Assistant Collector and found that as per the
directions in the earlier orders, only the appropriate proceedings
were to be adopted but the appellants could not have been conferred
khatedari rights in the applications purportedly moved under Section
15AAA because the Board had never countenanced filing of any
application contrary to law; and the applications as made on
27.08.1991 were clearly beyond the period permitted by Section
15AAA for moving of such application i.e., until 30.06.1987. The
learned RAA also did not approve the findings that the land in
question had been of the grand father of the parties and observed
that in the Jamabandi for Svt. Years 2011 to 2014, the land had been
recorded in the name of Dula son of Gugan alone. The learned RAA
particularly referred to the fact that there had been a suit filed for
6
declaration and division of the land belonging to Gugan Ram that
was decided on 22.07.1987; and neither Dula Ram was joined as a
party to the said suit nor the land in question was included therein
though Dungar Ram, father of the present appellants, was a party
thereto and he did receive the land from his father Gugan Ram.
The learned RAA, of course, observed that pursuant to the order
passed by the Board on 25.06.1991, it was for the government to
take appropriate steps for declaring the land in question as the
government land and when such proceedings had not been adopted,
the position of the record shall remain unaltered. The relevant
portions of the findings recorded and conclusions reached by the
learned RAA could be usefully noticed as under:-
“…. सह य लकLर य:E ख त ह1 । दल र म षपत गग: र म ! आर ज अलग
स र जजस ष+भ ज द + + उदघ!(र द + उपखणN
अधध र0 अप न रय दद. 22.7.87 द र न ररत क य ह1
जजसम5 ष++ ददत भमम उसम5 श ममल ह0> ह1 तर दल र म भ उE
+ द म5 पक र ह0> र । रसप!. षपत Nग > र उE + द स>. 24
न रय दद. 22.7.87 म5 भ ग द र र तर पतयर.गर षपत Nग
> र
! उस षपत गग : र म ! आर ज औद ह: ई र ।….”——- ——- ——-
“….प रर म5 ज! र जस+ अमभलख पसत:त ह:ए ह1 उस अ :स र
जम ब>द0 सम+त Q 2011 स 2014 म5 यह भमम दल प:त गग : जL
अ ल म दज ह1 । तर खतI सम+त Q 2041 च -2
ए .Nबल.N . + च -5 ए .Nबल.N . म5 यह भमम अप ल र.गर
म दज ह1 तर जररए इ>त ल दल पत : गग : यE : बज
शत < म ज न र ध र ह1 तर र जय सर र ष+रद
र!सप!. पनत ल बज म ज भ ह सय सपद ह1 तर ऐस
म ज यह दश त ह1 क ष+द Q सह य लकLर अप
अधध र कत स ब हर ज र ऐस दLपपर < ह1 ।…"------- ------- ------- "...इस प र यह सपष ह1 क रसप!. स>. 1 + 2 पर पत स>. 5/91 + 6/91 अ+धध प र ह! स स>ध रर य!गय ह0> ह1 तर उE द! / प र पत भ तर ममय द पश ह0> ह! स इ पर !ई य+ ह0 अपककत ह0> र । इ प र पत पर य+ ह0 र गलत रप स अप ल ध आदश प ररत क य गय ह1 । इस म मल म5 यह सह0 ह1 क म य र जस+ मणNल न रय दद >25.6.91 ज! 1991 आर.आर.N . पज 468 पर पनत+ददत ह1 अ>नतम
ह! च: ह1 तर उE न रय प1र 7 म5 यह सपष क य गय ह1
क ध र -15 एएए पर पत ! तय रत समय +ल
7
प र.गर अधध र/ ! ह0 तय क य ज स त ह1 श( भमम
कय ह!ग इस समब>ध म5 !ई न रय मलय ज स त ह1
और !ई आदश ददय ज स त ह1 । यदद श( बच ह:ई भमम
र जय सर र ! ममल ह1 त! उस मलए अ :स र ज!
य+ ह0 < ज च दहए +ह0 य+ ह0 सर र ! र
च दहए। इस प र यह सपष ह1 क उE न रय म5 43 ब घ भमम
! ध रर र अधध र0 अप . ! म ह1 तर श( भमम
ब र म5 र ब र ज र आदश दद. 25.2.88 न रसत ह! गय ह1
तर सर र इस म मल म5 श( भमम ! र ब र ज घ!ष(त
र < ह1 । ऐस दश म5 उE न रय दद.25.6.1991 प श म5 यह0 म ज एग क श( बच 40 ब घ 10 बबस+ भमम मलए म य र जस+ मणNल !ई आदश प ररत ह0> ह1 तर उE आदश अ :स र र जय सर र उE 40 ब घ 10 बबस+ भमम ! र ब र ज घ!ष(त र गत य+ ह0 ह0> त ह1 ।..."Aggrieved by the order so passed by the RAA on 22.09.2000,
the present appellants preferred the revision petition before the
Board that was dismissed by the impugned order dated 05.02.2001
with the learned Member of the Board finding no case for
interference. In relation to the facts of the case, the learned Member
of the Board observed,-
”7. It appears that earlier the land belonged to Gugan Ram
and later on of Dula Ram. Earlier the Revenue Board
judgment also says that the decision regarding taking over
the land as rakba raaj was not proper. The non-petitioners
had applied in 1983 under Section 15 (AAA) and they got
khatedari rights over 43 bighas of land upto the limit
prescribed by the ceiling law.”The learned Member thereafter found that the view taken by
the Assistant Collector was not in conformity with the order dated
25.06.1991 as earlier passed by the Board; and hence, the order
dated 13.07.2000 had rightly been set aside by the RAA. The
learned Member of the Board, while finding no case in favour of the
petitioners-appellants said,-
“9. The land, basically, appears to be of Dula Ram and after
his death the land should go to his 3 daughters. Therefore,
khatedari rights to the extent of 43 bighas had already been
conferred on the 3 daughters. It is now to be checked
whether this was proper under the Ceiling Act and any
8
more land could be now given to 3 daughters under the
ceiling limit or under any other law in force but there is no
case made out in favour of petitioners……”Aggrieved by the order so passed by the Board, the
petitioners-appellants preferred the writ petition that has been
dismissed by the learned Single Judge by the impugned order dated
10.05.2001. The learned Single Judge after taking note of facts and
the background aspects of the case and the material on record said,-
”The Board of Revenue while agreeing with the
findings recorded by the Revenue Appellate Authority
dismissed the revision. It recorded that the land basically
appears to be of Dularam and after his death, the land
would go to his three daughters and, therefore, khatedari
rights to the extent of 43 bighas has already been conferred
on his daughters.Learned counsel for the petitioners is not in a
position to contend that any of the material which has been
relied on by the Revenue Appellate Authority for recording
its finding which have been affirmed by the Board of
Revenue do not exist or even erroneously mentioned in the
order. With these precincts, once it is accepted that there
has been earlier partition suit in respect of the land of
Guganram in which father of the petitioners was a party
and Dularam was not a party nor the property in question
was subject matter of that suit, there remains no error much
less any error apparent on the face of record to sustain
challenge to finding that this land cannot be treated as land
of Guganram, to which the petitioners’ claim as coparceners
on the basis of the property being ancestral origin must fail.
I, therefore, find no force in this petition and it is
hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.”Assailing the order so passed by the learned Single Judge, it
has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that
the land in question with other holdings belonged to Gugan Ram,
grand father of the appellants and merely because a part thereof got
wrongly recorded in the name of Dula Ram, no right or title came
existing in Dula Ram or his successors; and neither khatedari rights
could have been conferred in favour of the daughters of Dula Ram
in exclusion of the appellants nor the appellants could have been
9
denied khatedari rights in the remaining 40 bighas of the land inquestion. The learned counsel further contended that the RAA
proceeded on a wrong assumption that the land did not belong to
Gugan Ram and the observations in that regard remain contrary to
the record. According to the learned counsel, reference to partition
suit filed by Khumana Ram was entirely inapt because even if the
land standing in the name of Dula Ram was not included in the
partition suit so filed by Khumana Ram, it could not have been
assumed that the land did not belong to Gugan Ram nor such an
omission by the said plaintiff could have been treated adverse to the
rights of the appellants. According to the learned counsel, there was
no reason that Dula Ram would have been recorded as the sole
khatedar of the land in question and in the given facts and
circumstances, such entries in record never created any title in Dula
Ram. The learned counsel for the appellant has also endeavoured
to submit that on the fact as to whether the land in question
belonged to Gugan Ram, the learned Member of the Board had
initially recorded such findings in favour of the appellants and the
observations as made in later part of the order that it belonged to
Dula Ram remain perverse. Thus, according to the learned counsel,
a case for remand of the matter to the Board is clearly made out.
The learned counsel for the respondents has duly supported the
orders impugned.
Having given a thoughtful consideration to the submissions
made by the learned counsel and having examined the record, we
are clearly of opinion that this appeal remains bereft of substance
and deserves to be dismissed.
10
After having examined all the relevant orders as passed in the
chequered history of this litigation, we have not an iota of doubt that
the applications as moved by the appellants under Section 15AAA
were baseless and incompetent. The learned Assistant Collector in
his order dated 13.07.2000 proceeded to allow the said applications
on an entirely erroneous view of the matter and with an erroneous
angle of approach while proceeding rather contrary to the order
passed by the Board on 25.06.1991. However, the learned RAA in
his order dated 22.09.2000 properly examined the facts of the case
and so also the law applicable while setting aside the order so
passed by the Assistant Collector essentially for three reasons: (i)
that as per the order dated 25.06.1991, the appellants could have
adopted suitable proceedings for their claim but could not have been
conferred khatedari rights under Section 15AAA; (ii) that the
applications under Section 15AAA were made much beyond the
period prescribed by the statute and were not maintainable; and (iii)
that on facts, there was no basis to accept the submission that the
land in question belonged to Gugan Ram when the revenue records
stated to the contrary and then, in the suit for declaration and
partition as filed in relation to the holdings of Gugan Ram, there had
been conspicuous omission to refer to Dula Ram or to the aforesaid
land standing in the name of Dula Ram, the subject matter of this
appeal.
The findings as recorded and the conclusions as reached by
the learned RAA remain valid and in accord with the record. The
substance of the matter remains that the land in question on which
the contesting respondents laid the claim as daughters of Dula Ram
was found recorded in the name of Dula Ram at the relevant time,
11
particularly on the date of commencement of Rajasthan Tenancy
Act, 1955. However, the claim of khatedari rights as made by the
contesting respondents was allowed only to the extent of 43 bighas
of land and was disallowed for the remaining, being hit by ceiling
limit. Though the present appellants intervened in the application so
moved by the contesting respondents under Section 15AAA but the
Board, in its order dated 25.06.1991, had been absolutely clear and
emphatic in its finding that the petitioners-appellants could not have
been conferred khatedari rights in the proceedings adopted by the
daughters of Dula Ram. However, looking to the purport of the
impugned order, the Board clarified that the State shall be required
to adopt suitable proceedings for getting remaining part of the land
in question declared as Rakba Raj; and, in the same context,
observed that the appellants shall be required to adopt suitable
proceedings. We are clearly of view that by way of such
observations, the appellants were not given any liberty or licence to
claim khatedari rights per Section 15AAA ibid.
Moreover, the appellants had no case even on merits so far
the land in question is concerned. The finding on facts that the land
in question did not belong to Gugan Ram as recorded by the learned
RAA has also been in accord with the position of the record when it
was found that on the date of commencement of the Act of 1955, the
land in question stood recorded in the name of Dula Ram alone. In
fact such findings stood concluded even in the earlier round of
litigation on the application under Section 15AAA ibid as moved by
the daughters of Dula Ram whereupon final order was passed by
the Board on 25.06.1991. Then, the conclusion that the holdings of
Gugan Ram were different than the land in question is fortified by
12
the significant proceedings where Khumana Ram, one of the sons of
Gugan Ram, filed a suit in the Court of Sub Divisional Officer
(Revenue), Nohar purportedly under Sections 88 and 53 of the Act
of 1955 on 28.02.1987 seeking declaration of khatedari rights and
division of holdings in several parcels of agricultural land situated at
Chak 5NWD, Chak 2NWD and Chak 3 NWD while joining Dungar
Ram, Girdhari and Ganga Ram, sons of Gugan Ram and the State
of Rajasthan as the party defendants. With filing of written
statement of admission by the private defendants, the learned Sub
Divisional Officer proceeded to hold that the land as referred in the
suit was the joint family property of Gugan Ram and his four sons,
the plaintiff and the three defendants, were entitled to 1/4th share
each and issued directions accordingly. The contesting respondents
were not joined as parties in the said suit and, rather, it was
suggested that Gugan Ram had four sons. Thus, nothing was stated
in relation to Dula Ram, father of the contesting respondents who
was admittedly the son of Gugan Ram and then, the land in question
was not made a subject-matter of the said suit. The petitioners-
appellants cannot escape from the adverse effect of the said suit
because their father Dungar Ram had been a party thereto; and
indeed a written statement of admission was filed therein. In the face
of such conduct of the parties and such proceedings consciously
adopted, the learned RAA was justified in finding that the land in
question was not referable to Gugan Ram. Apart from the said suit,
the position in the revenue record had been clear that the land in
question stood recorded in the name of Dula Ram alone. The
conclusions as drawn by the revenue authorities with reference to
the material available on record cannot be said to be unjustified.
13
The submission as made on the frame of the order of Board of
Revenue neither relates to the substance of the matter nor appears
correct. The observations as made by the learned Member of the
Board in paragraph-7 of the impugned order had essentially been of
a glance at the background facts and cannot be said to be those of
categorical findings that had, in fact, been recorded in paragraph-9
of the impugned order, as reproduced hereinabove. Even otherwise,
the Board was dealing with the matter in its revisional jurisdiction;
and there was no reason for the Board to have upset a finding on
fact as recorded by the first appellate Court.
Put in a nutshell, we find that there had been clear and
specific finding in the earlier round of litigation that the land in
question was recorded in the name of Dula Ram. The learned RAA
in the present proceedings, while passing the order dated
22.09.2000, has taken care to record such finding over again in clear
and no uncertain terms for valid reasons as noticed supra. Standing
this position, invoking of Section 15AAA ibid by the appellants could
not have been countenanced being not of appropriate proceedings
that the Board had left the appellants free to adopt in the order dated
25.06.1991.
In view of the aforesaid, we are clearly of opinion that there
was no case for interference by the writ Court in this matter; and the
learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by
the petitioners-appellants.
Consequently, this appeal fails and is, therefore, dismissed.
No costs.
MK (DINESH MAHESHWARI),J. (A.M.SAPRE),J.