{"id":154124,"date":"2010-05-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-05-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pooran-ram-and-anothers-vs-the-board-of-revenue-and-others-on-12-may-2010"},"modified":"2017-03-03T19:15:22","modified_gmt":"2017-03-03T13:45:22","slug":"pooran-ram-and-anothers-vs-the-board-of-revenue-and-others-on-12-may-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pooran-ram-and-anothers-vs-the-board-of-revenue-and-others-on-12-may-2010","title":{"rendered":"Pooran Ram And Anothers vs The Board Of Revenue And Others on 12 May, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur<\/div>\n
Pooran Ram And Anothers vs The Board Of Revenue And Others on 12 May, 2010<\/div>\n
                                     1\n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT\n                       JODHPUR\n\n                          :: JUDGMENT ::\n\n                       Pooran Ram & Anr.\n                                Vs.\n        The Board of Revenue for Rajasthan at Ajmer & Ors.\n          D.B.CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO. 685\/2001.\n\nDate of Judgment                            ::::           12th   May 2010.\n\n                              PRESENT\n\n             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.SAPRE\n         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI\n\nMr. J.L.Purohit, for the appellants.\nMr. Sudheer Sharma, for the respondents Nos. 5 to 7.\n                                \n\nBY THE COURT: (Per Dinesh Maheshwari, J.)<\/pre>\n
      This special appeal is directed against the order dated<\/p>\n
10.05.2001 whereby the learned Single Judge of this Court has<\/p>\n
dismissed the writ petition (CWP No.1707\/2001) filed by the<\/p>\n
petitioners-appellants in challenge to the order dated 05.02.2001 as<\/p>\n
passed by the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer (‘the Board’)<\/p>\n
in Revision Petition No.175\/2000 whereby the Board had affirmed<\/p>\n
the order dated 22.09.2000 as passed by the Revenue Appellate<\/p>\n
Authority, Hanumangarh (‘the RAA’) in Appeal No.20\/2000. By the<\/p>\n
order dated 22.09.2000, the RAA had set aside an order dated<\/p>\n
13.07.2000 as passed by the Assistant Collector, Rawatsar in the<\/p>\n
applications moved by the petitioners-appellants, purportedly under<\/p>\n
Section 15-AAA of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (‘the Act of<\/p>\n
1955’) seeking khatedari rights in the land in question.<\/p>\n
      Shorn of unnecessary details, the relevant facts and<\/p>\n
background    aspects    of    the       matter    could   be     taken   into
\n                                   2<\/span>
\ncomprehension thus: The petitioners-appellants Pooran Ram and<\/p>\n
Saheb Ram and the contesting respondents Mst. Gora, Mst. Gita<\/p>\n
and Mst. Barji are the decedents of a common ancestor Gugan Ram<\/p>\n
who had five sons: Dula Ram, Dungar Ram, Girdhari, Ganga Ram<\/p>\n
and Khumana Ram. The contesting respondents are the daughters<\/p>\n
of Dula Ram whereas the petitioners-appellants are the sons of<\/p>\n
Dungar Ram. Dula Ram, father of contesting respondents, expired in<\/p>\n
the year 1976.\n<\/p>\n
      The contesting respondents made an application seeking<\/p>\n
khatedari rights per Section 15-AAA of the Act of 1955 in relation to<\/p>\n
85 bighas and 10 biswas of agricultural land situated at Chak 5 NWD<\/p>\n
and Chak 2 NWD. By an order dated 25.02.1988, the Assistant<\/p>\n
Collector partly allowed the application so moved by the contesting<\/p>\n
respondents after noticing that their father Dula Ram had been in<\/p>\n
cultivatory possession of such 85 bighas and 10 biswas land before<\/p>\n
Svt. Year 2012. However, after applying the provisions of Agricultural<\/p>\n
Land Ceiling, the Assistant Collector found the applicants, daughters<\/p>\n
of Dula Ram, entitled to be granted khatedari rights only in relation<\/p>\n
to 43 bighas of command land; and, accordingly, conferred khatedari<\/p>\n
rights in relation to 25 bighas of land as comprised in Murraba<\/p>\n
No.215\/6 at Chak 5 NWD free of cost and 18 bighas of land as<\/p>\n
comprised in Murraba No.235\/4 at Chak 5 NWD on the price of<\/p>\n
Rs.1400\/- per bigha.    The learned Assistant Collector, however,<\/p>\n
declared the remaining part of the land, said to be comprised in<\/p>\n
Murraba No.235\/4 at Chak 5 NWD and in Murraba Nos.234\/60 and<\/p>\n
234\/61 at Chak 2 NWD, as the government land.\n<\/p>\n
      The present appellants preferred an appeal against the said<\/p>\n
order dated 25.02.1988 whereupon the matter was remanded to the
\n                                    3<\/span>
\nAssistant Collector who, after remand, proceeded to decide the<\/p>\n
matter by the order dated 26.04.1990. The learned Assistant<\/p>\n
Collector referred to the submissions made on behalf of the present<\/p>\n
appellants that the land situated at Chak 2 NWD was recorded in the<\/p>\n
name of their grand father Gugan Ram and after his death, his sons<\/p>\n
inherited the tenancy rights; and found that while Dula Ram’s<\/p>\n
daughters were not entitled to any land beyond 43 bighas but then,<\/p>\n
the sons of Gugan Ram had the rights in relation to 37 bighas of land<\/p>\n
situated at Chak 2 NWD; and, after calculating the share available in<\/p>\n
relation to the branch of Dungar Ram, father of appellants, held the<\/p>\n
appellants entitled to the khatedari rights in relation to 7 bighas and 8<\/p>\n
biswas of land and ordered such grant of khatedari rights from out of<\/p>\n
the land comprised in Murraba No.234\/60 at Chak 2 NWD. The<\/p>\n
learned Assistant Collector, however, ordered that the remaining<\/p>\n
shall be recorded as the government land.\n<\/p>\n
      The aforesaid order dated 26.04.1990 as passed by the<\/p>\n
Assistant Collector, Nohar was questioned by way of separate<\/p>\n
appeals by the present contesting parties. The learned RAA,<\/p>\n
however, dismissed both the appeals by the order dated 09.07.1990.<\/p>\n
Against the order so passed by the learned RAA on 09.07.1990, the<\/p>\n
contesting respondents, daughters of Dula Ram, preferred a revision<\/p>\n
petition (No.122\/Ganganagar\/1990) before the Board that came to<\/p>\n
be decided by the order dated 25.06.1991. The learned Member of<\/p>\n
the Board, though approved the orders aforesaid so far granting of<\/p>\n
khatedari rights in 43 bighas of land to the daughters of Dula Ram<\/p>\n
was concerned but then, did not approve of the other part of the<\/p>\n
orders granting khatedari rights to Pooran Ram (appellant) and<\/p>\n
declaring the remaining land as government land with the
\n                                   4<\/span>
\nobservations that the concerned parties were free to adopt suitable<\/p>\n
proceedings in accordance with law but while deciding the<\/p>\n
application moved by the applicants (the contesting respondents) no<\/p>\n
such directions could have been issued. The learned Member of the<\/p>\n
Board said,-\n<\/p>\n
      ''7-\u0926\u0938\u0930 \u092a\u0936 \u092f\u0939 \u0909\u0920 \u092f \u0917\u092f \u0915            \u0907\u0938 \u092a \u0930     \u092a\u0924      \u0928 \u0930\u092f\n         \u0930\u0924 \u0938\u092e\u092f \u0905\u0927 \u0938\u0930 \u0928\u092f \u092f \u0932\u092f ! \u092d\u092e\u092e ! \u0930 \u092c \u0930 \u091c \u0918!\u0937(\u0924\n         \u0930       \u0905\u0927\u0927 \u0930 \u0930 \u0964 \u092e\u0930 \u0937+\u091a \u0930 \u0938 15 \u090f\u090f\u090f        \u092a\u0930     \u092a\u0924 !\n      \u0924\u092f \u0930\u0924 \u0938\u092e\u092f +\u0932 \u092a \u0930.\u0917\u0930                \u0905\u0927\u0927 \u0930\/ ! \u09390 \u0924\u092f \u0915 \u092f\n      \u091c \u0938 \u0924 \u09391 \u0936( \u092d\u092e\u092e            \u0915\u092f \u0939!\u0917 \u0907\u0938 \u0938\u092e\u092c\u0928\u0927 \u092e5            !\u0908\n      \u0928 \u0930\u092f \u092e\u0932\u092f \u091c \u0938 \u0924 \u09391 \u0914\u0930             !\u0908 \u0906\u0926\u0936 \u0926\u0926\u092f \u091c \u0938 \u0924 \u09391 \u0964\n      \u092f\u0926\u0926 \u0936( \u092c\u091a \u0939:\u0908 \u092d\u092e\u092e \u0930 \u091c\u092f \u0938\u0930 \u0930 ! \u092e\u092e\u0932               \u09391 \u0924! \u0909\u0938\n      \u092e\u0932\u092f              \u0905 :\u0938 \u0930 \u091c!      \u092f+ \u09390   < \u091c     \u091a \u0926\u0939\u092f +\u09390\n          \u092f+ \u09390 \u0938\u0930 \u0930 ! \u0930 \u091a \u0926\u0939\u092f\u0964 \u092c\u092c           \u0907\u0938 \u092a \u0930  \u0915 \u092f \u091c \u0938 \u0924 \u0964 \u0907\u0938 \u0924\u0930\u0939\n      \u0938 \u092a\u0930\u0930 \u0930 \u092e       \u0938\u092e\u092c\u0928\u0927 \u092e5 \u0915 \u0938 \u092a \u0930           \u0906\u0926\u0936 \u0907\u0938 \u092a \u0930\n      \u092a\u0924 \u092e5 \u09390> \u0926\u0926\u092f \u091c \u0938 \u0924 \u0964 \u092a\u0930\u0930 \u0930 \u092e \u092f\u0926\u0926 \u0916 \u0924\u0926 \u09300 \u0905\u0927\u0927 \u0930\n      \u092a \u092a\u0924 \u0930          \u0905\u0927\u0927 \u09300 \u09391 \u0924! \u0909\u0938 ! \u0928 \u092f\u092e \u0938    : \u0930 \u0909\u0938 \u092e\u0932\u092f\n          \u092f+ \u09390 \u0930 \u0939!\u0917 \u0964 \u0907 \u092a \u0930.\u0917\u0930          \u092a \u0930 \u092a\u0924 \u092e5 \u0909\u0938 ! \u0915 \u0938\n      \u092a \u0930         \u0905\u0927\u0927 \u0930 \u0926\u0926\u092f \u091c \u0938          \u092f \u0909\u0938 \u092a\u0915 \u092e5 \u092d\u092e\u092e + \u09390> \u09391 \u0964 \u0907\u0938 \u0927 \u0930       \u0905\u0928\u0924\u0917\u0924\n      \u0910\u0938      !\u0908 \u092d \u092a +\u0927       \u09390> \u09391 \u0915   \u0915 \u0938 \u090f     \u0935\u092f\u0915E       \u0926\u0930\n      \u092a\u0930       \u092a\u0924 \u092a\u0938\u0924:\u0924 \u0915 \u092f \u091c        \u092a\u0930 \u0909\u0938 \u092d\u092e\u092e \u0938\u092e\u092c\u0928\u0927 \u0938\u092e\u0938\u0924\n      \u0905\u0927\u0927 \u09300        \u0938\u092e\u092c\u0928\u0927 \u092e5 \u0928 \u0930\u092f \u092e\u0932\u092f \u091c \u092f \u092f \u092a\u0930 \u092a\u0930\u0930+ \u0930 !\n      \u0916 \u0924\u0926 \u09300 \u09260 \u091c \u092f\u0964 \u091c\u091c\u0938 \u0935\u092f\u0915E          \u092a\u0930     \u092a\u0924 \u092a\u0938\u0924:\u0924 \u0915 \u092f \u09391\n      \u0909\u0938 ! \u0916 \u0924\u0926 \u09300 \u092e\u092e\u0932 \u0938 \u0924 \u09391 \u092f         \u09390> \u0914\u0930 \u092f\u0926\u0926 \u092e\u092e\u0932 \u0938 \u0924 \u09391\n      \u0924! \u0915 \u0924      + I \u0938 \u092d\u092e\u092e \u092a\u0930 \u092e\u092e\u0932 \u0938 \u0924 \u09391, \u092f\u0939 \u0928 \u0930\u092f \u0932\n      \u0907\u0938 \u0927 \u0930       \u0905\u0928\u0924\u0917\u0924 + >\u091b \u092f \u09391 \u0964 \u0905\u0924: \u092a\u0930\u0930 \u0930 \u092e + \u0930 \u091c\u092f \u0938\u0930 \u0930\n           \u092a\u0915 \u092e5 \u0926\u0926\u092f \u0917\u092f \u0928 \u0930\u092f !          \u092f\u092e \u09390> \u0915 \u092f \u091c \u0938 \u0924 \u0964\n      \u0926! \/ \u092a\u0915 \u0930        \u0928 \u092f\u092e :\u0938 \u0930 \u091c! \u092d       \u092f+ \u09390 \u0930 \u0938 \u0924 \u09391 +!\n         \u0930      \u092e\u0932\u092f \u0938+\u0924\u0928\u0924 \u09391 \u092a\u0930\u0928\u0924: \u092a \u0930.\u0917\u0930      \u092a \u0930 \u092a\u0924       \u0928 \u0930\u092f\n         \u0930\u0924 \u0938\u092e\u092f \u0907\u0938 \u0905\u0927\u0927 \u0930\/ \u092a\u0930 !\u0908 \u0928 \u0930\u092f \u09390> \u092e\u0932\u092f \u091c \u0938 \u0924\n          \u0906\u0926\u0936 \u0926\u0926\u092f \u091c \u0938 \u0924 \u09391 \u0964\n\n      8- \u0907\u0938 \u0924\u0930\u0939 \u0938 \u092f\u0939 \u0928 \u0917\u0930        \u0906>\u092e\u0936 \u0930\u092a \u0938 \u0938+ \u0930 < \u091c \u0924 \u09391 \u0964\n      \u0930 \u091c\u092f \u0938\u0930 \u0930       \u092a\u0915 \u092e5 \u092d\u092e\u092e \u0930 \u092c \u0930 \u091c \u0918!\u0937(\u0924 \u0930        \u0906\u0926\u0936\n      \u0924\u0930 \u092a\u0930\u0930 \u0930 \u092e         \u092a\u0915 \u092e5 \u0926\u0926\u092f \u0917\u092f \u0906\u0926\u0936 \u0928 \u0930\u0938\u0924 \u0915 \u092f \u091c \u0924\n      \u09391 \u0964 \u092a \u0930.\u0917\u0930     \u092a\u0915 \u092e5 \u0926\u0926\u092f \u0917\u092f \u0906\u0926\u0936 \u092e5 \u0915 \u0938 \u0939\u0938\u0924\u0915\u092a  \u09391 \u0964 \u0909 ! \u091c\u091c\u0924    \u092d\u092e\u092e < \u0916 \u0924\u0926 \u09300 \u09260 \u0917\u0908 \u09391\n      \u0909\u0924 \u09390 \u092d\u092e\u092e          \u0906\u0926\u0936    \u092f\u092e \u0930\u0916 \u091c \u0924 \u09391 \u0964"\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
      It may be noticed for the purpose of basic factual matrix that<\/p>\n
the said order dated 25.06.1991 was attempted to be questioned by<\/p>\n
the present respondents by way of a writ petition (CWP<\/p>\n
No.3138\/1991); however, the said writ petition was withdrawn and<\/p>\n
was dismissed as such on 25.02.1997.\n<\/p>\n
                                   5<\/span><\/p>\n
      After passing of the aforesaid order dated 25.06.1991 by the<\/p>\n
Board, the present appellants made a claim for conferment of<\/p>\n
khatedari rights in the land in question by moving applications under<\/p>\n
Section 15AAA ibid; and it is this claim of the appellants which forms<\/p>\n
the subject matter of the present appeal. While dealing with the<\/p>\n
applications so moved by the appellants, the learned Assistant<\/p>\n
Collector, Rawatsar in his order dated 13.07.2000 observed that<\/p>\n
112.17 bighas of land had been recorded in the name of Gugan<\/p>\n
Ram; and proceeded to hold that the appellants were entitled to be<\/p>\n
conferred khatedari rights on the remaining 40 bighas of the land in<\/p>\n
question.\n<\/p>\n
      The contesting respondents herein, the daughters of Dula<\/p>\n
Ram, preferred an appeal before the RAA against the aforesaid<\/p>\n
order dated 13.07.2000; and this appeal came to be allowed on<\/p>\n
22.09.2000. The learned RAA did not approve of the considerations<\/p>\n
adopted by the Assistant Collector and found that as per the<\/p>\n
directions in the earlier orders, only the appropriate proceedings<\/p>\n
were to be adopted but the appellants could not have been conferred<\/p>\n
khatedari rights in the applications purportedly moved under Section<\/p>\n
15AAA because the Board had never countenanced filing of any<\/p>\n
application contrary to law; and the applications as made on<\/p>\n
27.08.1991 were clearly beyond the period permitted by Section<\/p>\n
15AAA for moving of such application i.e., until 30.06.1987. The<\/p>\n
learned RAA also did not approve the findings that the land in<\/p>\n
question had been of the grand father of the parties and observed<\/p>\n
that in the Jamabandi for Svt. Years 2011 to 2014, the land had been<\/p>\n
recorded in the name of Dula son of Gugan alone. The learned RAA<\/p>\n
particularly referred to the fact that there had been a suit filed for
\n                                      6<\/span>
\ndeclaration and division of the land belonging to Gugan Ram that<\/p>\n
was decided on 22.07.1987; and neither Dula Ram was joined as a<\/p>\n
party to the said suit nor the land in question was included therein<\/p>\n
though Dungar Ram, father of the present appellants, was a party<\/p>\n
thereto and he did receive the land from his father Gugan Ram.<\/p>\n
The learned RAA, of course, observed that pursuant to the order<\/p>\n
passed by the Board on 25.06.1991, it was for the government to<\/p>\n
take appropriate steps for declaring the land in question as the<\/p>\n
government land and when such proceedings had not been adopted,<\/p>\n
the position of the record shall remain unaltered. The relevant<\/p>\n
portions of the findings recorded and conclusions reached by the<\/p>\n
learned RAA could be usefully noticed as under:-\n<\/p>\n
      “…. \u0938\u0939 \u092f  \u0932\u0915L\u0930 \u092f:E \u0916 \u0924  \u09391 \u0964 \u0926\u0932 \u0930 \u092e     \u0937\u092a\u0924 \u0917\u0917: \u0930 \u092e ! \u0906\u0930 \u091c \u0905\u0932\u0917
\n      \u0938 \u0930 \u091c\u091c\u0938 \u0937+\u092d \u091c               \u0926 + + \u0909\u0926\u0918!(\u0930            \u0926 + \u0909\u092a\u0916\u0923N
\n      \u0905\u0927\u0927 \u09300      \u0905\u092a \u0928 \u0930\u092f \u0926\u0926. 22.7.87 \u0926 \u0930 \u0928 \u0930\u0930\u0924 \u0915 \u092f \u09391
\n      \u091c\u091c\u0938\u092e5 \u0937++ \u0926\u0926\u0924 \u092d\u092e\u092e \u0909\u0938\u092e5 \u0936 \u092e\u092e\u0932 \u09390> \u09391 \u0924\u0930 \u0926\u0932 \u0930 \u092e \u092d \u0909E
\n      + \u0926 \u092e5 \u092a\u0915 \u0930 \u09390> \u0930 \u0964 \u0930\u0938\u092a!.          \u0937\u092a\u0924 N\u0917  > \u0930 \u0909E + \u0926 \u0938>. 24
\n      \u0928 \u0930\u092f \u0926\u0926. 22.7.87 \u092e5 \u092d \u0917 \u0926 \u0930 \u0930 \u0924\u0930 \u092a\u0924\u092f\u0930.\u0917\u0930               \u0937\u092a\u0924 N\u0917
\n                                                                  > \u0930
\n         ! \u0909\u0938 \u0937\u092a\u0924 \u0917\u0917 :    \u0930 \u092e   ! \u0906\u0930  \u091c \u0914\u0926   \u0939: \u0908  \u0930 \u0964….”<\/p>\n
      ——-                    ——-                    ——-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      “….\u092a \u0930\u0930 \u092e5 \u091c! \u0930 \u091c\u0938+ \u0905\u092e\u092d\u0932\u0916 \u092a\u0938\u0924:\u0924 \u0939:\u090f \u09391 \u0909\u0938 \u0905 :\u0938 \u0930
\n      \u091c\u092e \u092c>\u09260 \u0938\u092e+\u0924 Q 2011 \u0938 2014 \u092e5 \u092f\u0939 \u092d\u092e\u092e \u0926\u0932 \u092a:\u0924 \u0917\u0917        :   \u091cL
\n      \u0905 \u0932          \u092e \u0926\u091c \u09391 \u0964 \u0924\u0930 \u0916\u0924I         \u0938\u092e+\u0924 Q 2041 \u091a -2
\n      \u090f .N\u092c\u0932.N . + \u091a -5 \u090f .N\u092c\u0932.N . \u092e5 \u092f\u0939 \u092d\u092e\u092e \u0905\u092a \u0932 \u0930.\u0917\u0930
\n         \u092e \u0926\u091c \u09391 \u0924\u0930 \u091c\u0930\u0930\u090f \u0907>\u0924 \u0932 \u0926\u0932 \u092a\u0924       : \u0917\u0917 :       \u092fE   :     \u092c\u091c
\n          \u0936\u0924 < \u092e      \u091c    \u0928 \u0930 \u0927 \u0930 \u09391 \u0924\u0930 \u0930 \u091c\u092f \u0938\u0930 \u0930            \u0937+\u0930\u0926
\n      \u0930!\u0938\u092a!.   \u092a\u0928\u0924 \u0932 \u092c\u091c \u092e         \u091c     \u092d \u0939 \u0938\u092f \u0938\u092a\u0926 \u09391 \u0924\u0930 \u0910\u0938
\n      \u092e      \u091c   \u092f\u0939 \u0926\u0936 \u0924 \u09391 \u0915 \u0937+\u0926 Q \u0938\u0939 \u092f             \u0932\u0915L\u0930      \u0905\u092a
\n      \u0905\u0927\u0927 \u0930 \u0915\u0924 \u0938 \u092c \u0939\u0930 \u091c \u0930 \u0910\u0938 \u0926L\u092a\u092a\u0930           < \u09391 \u0964…"\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      -------                    -------                    -------\n\n      \"...\u0907\u0938 \u092a \u0930 \u092f\u0939 \u0938\u092a\u0937 \u09391 \u0915 \u0930\u0938\u092a!. \u0938>. 1 + 2    \u092a\u0930    \u092a\u0924 \u0938>.\n      5\/91 + 6\/91 \u0905+\u0927\u0927 \u092a \u0930 \u0939! \u0938 \u0938>\u0927 \u0930\u0930 \u092f!\u0917\u092f \u09390> \u09391 \u0924\u0930 \u0909E\n      \u0926! \/ \u092a \u0930     \u092a\u0924 \u092d \u0924\u0930 \u092e\u092e\u092f \u0926 \u092a\u0936 \u09390> \u0939! \u0938 \u0907 \u092a\u0930 !\u0908\n          \u092f+ \u09390 \u0905\u092a\u0915\u0915\u0924 \u09390> \u0930 \u0964 \u0907 \u092a \u0930       \u092a\u0924 \u092a\u0930    \u092f+ \u09390  \u0930\n      \u0917\u0932\u0924 \u0930\u092a \u0938 \u0905\u092a \u0932 \u0927      \u0906\u0926\u0936 \u092a \u0930\u0930\u0924 \u0915 \u092f \u0917\u092f \u09391 \u0964 \u0907\u0938 \u092e \u092e\u0932\n      \u092e5 \u092f\u0939 \u0938\u09390 \u09391 \u0915    \u092e    \u092f \u0930 \u091c\u0938+ \u092e\u0923N\u0932       \u0928 \u0930\u092f \u0926\u0926 >\n<\/pre>\n
      25.6.91 \u091c! 1991 \u0906\u0930.\u0906\u0930.N . \u092a\u091c 468 \u092a\u0930 \u092a\u0928\u0924+\u0926\u0926\u0924 \u09391 \u0905>\u0928\u0924\u092e
\n      \u0939! \u091a:    \u09391 \u0924\u0930 \u0909E \u0928 \u0930\u092f    \u092a1\u0930 7 \u092e5 \u092f\u0939 \u0938\u092a\u0937 \u0915 \u092f \u0917\u092f \u09391
\n      \u0915    \u0927 \u0930 -15 \u090f\u090f\u090f    \u092a\u0930    \u092a\u0924   ! \u0924\u092f    \u0930\u0924 \u0938\u092e\u092f      +\u0932
\n                                    7<\/span>
\n      \u092a \u0930.\u0917\u0930       \u0905\u0927\u0927 \u0930\/ ! \u09390 \u0924\u092f \u0915 \u092f \u091c \u0938 \u0924 \u09391 \u0936( \u092d\u092e\u092e
\n           \u0915\u092f \u0939!\u0917 \u0907\u0938 \u0938\u092e\u092c>\u0927 \u092e5           !\u0908 \u0928 \u0930\u092f \u092e\u0932\u092f \u091c \u0938 \u0924 \u09391
\n      \u0914\u0930        !\u0908 \u0906\u0926\u0936 \u0926\u0926\u092f \u091c \u0938 \u0924 \u09391 \u0964 \u092f\u0926\u0926 \u0936( \u092c\u091a \u0939:\u0908 \u092d\u092e\u092e
\n      \u0930 \u091c\u092f \u0938\u0930 \u0930 ! \u092e\u092e\u0932 \u09391 \u0924! \u0909\u0938 \u092e\u0932\u090f                      \u0905 :\u0938 \u0930 \u091c!
\n         \u092f+ \u09390    < \u091c      \u091a \u0926\u0939\u090f +\u09390       \u092f+ \u09390 \u0938\u0930 \u0930      !   \u0930
\n      \u091a \u0926\u0939\u090f\u0964 \u0907\u0938 \u092a \u0930 \u092f\u0939 \u0938\u092a\u0937 \u09391 \u0915 \u0909E \u0928 \u0930\u092f \u092e5 43 \u092c \u0918 \u092d\u092e\u092e
\n        ! \u0927 \u0930\u0930 \u0930          \u0905\u0927\u0927 \u09300 \u0905\u092a . ! \u092e        \u09391 \u0924\u0930 \u0936( \u092d\u092e\u092e
\n      \u092c \u0930 \u092e5 \u0930 \u092c \u0930 \u091c \u0930             \u0906\u0926\u0936 \u0926\u0926. 25.2.88 \u0928 \u0930\u0938\u0924 \u0939! \u0917\u092f \u09391
\n      \u0924\u0930 \u0938\u0930 \u0930         \u0907\u0938 \u092e \u092e\u0932 \u092e5 \u0936( \u092d\u092e\u092e ! \u0930 \u092c \u0930 \u091c \u0918!\u0937(\u0924
\n        \u0930     < \u09391 \u0964 \u0910\u0938 \u0926\u0936 \u092e5 \u0909E \u0928 \u0930\u092f \u0926\u0926.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      25.6.1991     \u092a \u0936 \u092e5 \u092f\u09390 \u092e         \u091c \u090f\u0917 \u0915 \u0936( \u092c\u091a 40 \u092c \u0918\n      10 \u092c\u092c\u0938+ \u092d\u092e\u092e        \u092e\u0932\u090f \u092e       \u092f \u0930 \u091c\u0938+ \u092e\u0923N\u0932         !\u0908 \u0906\u0926\u0936\n      \u092a \u0930\u0930\u0924 \u09390> \u09391 \u0924\u0930 \u0909E \u0906\u0926\u0936            \u0905 :\u0938 \u0930 \u0930 \u091c\u092f \u0938\u0930 \u0930       \u0909E\n      40 \u092c \u0918 10 \u092c\u092c\u0938+ \u092d\u092e\u092e ! \u0930 \u092c \u0930 \u091c \u0918!\u0937(\u0924 \u0930                   \u0917\u0924     \u092f+ \u09390 \u09390>  \u0924 \u09391 \u0964...\"\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
      Aggrieved by the order so passed by the RAA on 22.09.2000,<\/p>\n
the present appellants preferred the revision petition before the<\/p>\n
Board that was dismissed by the impugned order dated 05.02.2001<\/p>\n
with the learned Member of the Board finding no case for<\/p>\n
interference. In relation to the facts of the case, the learned Member<\/p>\n
of the Board observed,-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      ”7. It appears that earlier the land belonged to Gugan Ram
\n      and later on of Dula Ram. Earlier the Revenue Board
\n      judgment also says that the decision regarding taking over
\n      the land as rakba raaj was not proper. The non-petitioners
\n      had applied in 1983 under Section 15 (AAA) and they got
\n      khatedari rights over 43 bighas of land upto the limit
\n      prescribed by the ceiling law.”<\/p>\n
      The learned Member thereafter found that the view taken by<\/p>\n
the Assistant Collector was not in conformity with the order dated<\/p>\n
25.06.1991 as earlier passed by the Board; and hence, the order<\/p>\n
dated 13.07.2000 had rightly been set aside by the RAA.              The<\/p>\n
learned Member of the Board, while finding no case in favour of the<\/p>\n
petitioners-appellants said,-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      “9. The land, basically, appears to be of Dula Ram and after
\n      his death the land should go to his 3 daughters. Therefore,
\n      khatedari rights to the extent of 43 bighas had already been
\n      conferred on the 3 daughters. It is now to be checked
\n      whether this was proper under the Ceiling Act and any
\n                                     8<\/span>
\n      more land could be now given to 3 daughters under the
\n      ceiling limit or under any other law in force but there is no
\n      case made out in favour of petitioners……”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
      Aggrieved by the order so passed by the Board, the<\/p>\n
petitioners-appellants preferred the writ petition that has been<\/p>\n
dismissed by the learned Single Judge by the impugned order dated<\/p>\n
10.05.2001. The learned Single Judge after taking note of facts and<\/p>\n
the background aspects of the case and the material on record said,-<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
             ”The Board of Revenue while agreeing with the
\n     findings recorded by the Revenue Appellate Authority
\n     dismissed the revision. It recorded that the land basically
\n     appears to be of Dularam and after his death, the land
\n     would go to his three daughters and, therefore, khatedari
\n     rights to the extent of 43 bighas has already been conferred
\n     on his daughters.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            Learned counsel for the petitioners is not in a
\n     position to contend that any of the material which has been
\n     relied on by the Revenue Appellate Authority for recording
\n     its finding which have been affirmed by the Board of
\n     Revenue do not exist or even erroneously mentioned in the
\n     order. With these precincts, once it is accepted that there
\n     has been earlier partition suit in respect of the land of
\n     Guganram in which father of the petitioners was a party
\n     and Dularam was not a party nor the property in question
\n     was subject matter of that suit, there remains no error much
\n     less any error apparent on the face of record to sustain
\n     challenge to finding that this land cannot be treated as land
\n     of Guganram, to which the petitioners’ claim as coparceners
\n     on the basis of the property being ancestral origin must fail.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
           I, therefore, find no force in this petition and it is
\n     hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.”<\/p>\n
      Assailing the order so passed by the learned Single Judge, it<\/p>\n
has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that<\/p>\n
the land in question with other holdings belonged to Gugan Ram,<\/p>\n
grand father of the appellants and merely because a part thereof got<\/p>\n
wrongly recorded in the name of Dula Ram, no right or title came<\/p>\n
existing in Dula Ram or his successors; and neither khatedari rights<\/p>\n
could have been conferred in favour of the daughters of Dula Ram<\/p>\n
in exclusion of the appellants nor the appellants could have been
\n                                  9<\/span>
\ndenied khatedari rights in the remaining 40 bighas of the land in<\/p>\n
question. The learned counsel further contended that the RAA<\/p>\n
proceeded on a wrong assumption that the land did not belong to<\/p>\n
Gugan Ram and the observations in that regard remain contrary to<\/p>\n
the record. According to the learned counsel, reference to partition<\/p>\n
suit filed by Khumana Ram was entirely inapt because even if the<\/p>\n
land standing in the name of Dula Ram was not included in the<\/p>\n
partition suit so filed by Khumana Ram, it could not have been<\/p>\n
assumed that the land did not belong to Gugan Ram nor such an<\/p>\n
omission by the said plaintiff could have been treated adverse to the<\/p>\n
rights of the appellants. According to the learned counsel, there was<\/p>\n
no reason that Dula Ram would have been recorded as the sole<\/p>\n
khatedar of the land in question and in the given facts and<\/p>\n
circumstances, such entries in record never created any title in Dula<\/p>\n
Ram. The learned counsel for the appellant has also endeavoured<\/p>\n
to submit that on the fact as to whether the land in question<\/p>\n
belonged to Gugan Ram, the learned Member of the Board had<\/p>\n
initially recorded such findings in favour of the appellants and the<\/p>\n
observations as made in later part of the order that it belonged to<\/p>\n
Dula Ram remain perverse. Thus, according to the learned counsel,<\/p>\n
a case for remand of the matter to the Board is clearly made out.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
The learned counsel for the respondents has duly supported the<\/p>\n
orders impugned.\n<\/p>\n
      Having given a thoughtful consideration to the submissions<\/p>\n
made by the learned counsel and having examined the record, we<\/p>\n
are clearly of opinion that this appeal remains bereft of substance<\/p>\n
and deserves to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
                                   10<\/span><\/p>\n
      After having examined all the relevant orders as passed in the<\/p>\n
chequered history of this litigation, we have not an iota of doubt that<\/p>\n
the applications as moved by the appellants under Section 15AAA<\/p>\n
were baseless and incompetent. The learned Assistant Collector in<\/p>\n
his order dated 13.07.2000 proceeded to allow the said applications<\/p>\n
on an entirely erroneous view of the matter and with an erroneous<\/p>\n
angle of approach while proceeding rather contrary to the order<\/p>\n
passed by the Board on 25.06.1991. However, the learned RAA in<\/p>\n
his order dated 22.09.2000 properly examined the facts of the case<\/p>\n
and so also the law applicable while setting aside the order so<\/p>\n
passed by the Assistant Collector essentially for three reasons: (i)<\/p>\n
that as per the order dated 25.06.1991, the appellants could have<\/p>\n
adopted suitable proceedings for their claim but could not have been<\/p>\n
conferred khatedari rights under Section 15AAA; (ii)          that the<\/p>\n
applications under Section 15AAA were made much beyond the<\/p>\n
period prescribed by the statute and were not maintainable; and (iii)<\/p>\n
that on facts, there was no basis to accept the submission that the<\/p>\n
land in question belonged to Gugan Ram when the revenue records<\/p>\n
stated to the contrary and then, in the suit for declaration and<\/p>\n
partition as filed in relation to the holdings of Gugan Ram, there had<\/p>\n
been conspicuous omission to refer to Dula Ram or to the aforesaid<\/p>\n
land standing in the name of Dula Ram, the subject matter of this<\/p>\n
appeal.\n<\/p>\n
      The findings as recorded and the conclusions as reached by<\/p>\n
the learned RAA remain valid and in accord with the record. The<\/p>\n
substance of the matter remains that the land in question on which<\/p>\n
the contesting respondents laid the claim as daughters of Dula Ram<\/p>\n
was found recorded in the name of Dula Ram at the relevant time,
\n                                  11<\/span>
\nparticularly on the date of commencement of Rajasthan Tenancy<\/p>\n
Act, 1955. However, the claim of khatedari rights as made by the<\/p>\n
contesting respondents was allowed only to the extent of 43 bighas<\/p>\n
of land and was disallowed for the remaining, being hit by ceiling<\/p>\n
limit. Though the present appellants intervened in the application so<\/p>\n
moved by the contesting respondents under Section 15AAA but the<\/p>\n
Board, in its order dated 25.06.1991, had been absolutely clear and<\/p>\n
emphatic in its finding that the petitioners-appellants could not have<\/p>\n
been conferred khatedari rights in the proceedings adopted by the<\/p>\n
daughters of Dula Ram. However, looking to the purport of the<\/p>\n
impugned order, the Board clarified that the State shall be required<\/p>\n
to adopt suitable proceedings for getting remaining part of the land<\/p>\n
in question declared as Rakba Raj; and, in the same context,<\/p>\n
observed that the appellants shall be required to adopt suitable<\/p>\n
proceedings. We are clearly of view that by way of such<\/p>\n
observations, the appellants were not given any liberty or licence to<\/p>\n
claim khatedari rights per Section 15AAA ibid.\n<\/p>\n
      Moreover, the appellants had no case even on merits so far<\/p>\n
the land in question is concerned. The finding on facts that the land<\/p>\n
in question did not belong to Gugan Ram as recorded by the learned<\/p>\n
RAA has also been in accord with the position of the record when it<\/p>\n
was found that on the date of commencement of the Act of 1955, the<\/p>\n
land in question stood recorded in the name of Dula Ram alone. In<\/p>\n
fact such findings stood concluded even in the earlier round of<\/p>\n
litigation on the application under Section 15AAA ibid as moved by<\/p>\n
the daughters of Dula Ram whereupon final order was passed by<\/p>\n
the Board on 25.06.1991. Then, the conclusion that the holdings of<\/p>\n
Gugan Ram were different than the land in question is fortified by
\n                                   12<\/span>
\nthe significant proceedings where Khumana Ram, one of the sons of<\/p>\n
Gugan Ram, filed a suit in the Court of Sub Divisional Officer<\/p>\n
(Revenue), Nohar purportedly under Sections 88 and 53 of the Act<\/p>\n
of 1955 on 28.02.1987 seeking declaration of khatedari rights and<\/p>\n
division of holdings in several parcels of agricultural land situated at<\/p>\n
Chak 5NWD, Chak 2NWD and Chak 3 NWD while joining Dungar<\/p>\n
Ram, Girdhari and Ganga Ram, sons of Gugan Ram and the State<\/p>\n
of Rajasthan as the party defendants.           With filing of written<\/p>\n
statement of admission by the private defendants, the learned Sub<\/p>\n
Divisional Officer proceeded to hold that the land as referred in the<\/p>\n
suit was the joint family property of Gugan Ram and his four sons,<\/p>\n
the plaintiff and the three defendants, were entitled to 1\/4th share<\/p>\n
each and issued directions accordingly. The contesting respondents<\/p>\n
were not joined as parties in the said suit and, rather,         it was<\/p>\n
suggested that Gugan Ram had four sons. Thus, nothing was stated<\/p>\n
in relation to Dula Ram, father of the contesting respondents who<\/p>\n
was admittedly the son of Gugan Ram and then, the land in question<\/p>\n
was not made a subject-matter of the said suit. The petitioners-<\/p>\n
appellants cannot escape from the adverse effect of the said suit<\/p>\n
because their father Dungar Ram had been a party thereto; and<\/p>\n
indeed a written statement of admission was filed therein. In the face<\/p>\n
of such conduct of the parties and such proceedings consciously<\/p>\n
adopted, the learned RAA was justified in finding that the land in<\/p>\n
question was not referable to Gugan Ram. Apart from the said suit,<\/p>\n
the position in the revenue record had been clear that the land in<\/p>\n
question stood recorded in the name of Dula Ram alone. The<\/p>\n
conclusions as drawn by the revenue authorities with reference to<\/p>\n
the material available on record cannot be said to be unjustified.
\n                                        13<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
           The submission as made on the frame of the order of Board of<\/p>\n
     Revenue neither relates to the substance of the matter nor appears<\/p>\n
     correct. The observations as made by the learned Member of the<\/p>\n
     Board in paragraph-7 of the impugned order had essentially been of<\/p>\n
     a glance at the background facts and cannot be said to be those of<\/p>\n
     categorical findings that had, in fact, been recorded in paragraph-9<\/p>\n
     of the impugned order, as reproduced hereinabove. Even otherwise,<\/p>\n
     the Board was dealing with the matter in its revisional jurisdiction;<\/p>\n
     and there was no reason for the Board to have upset a finding on<\/p>\n
     fact as recorded by the first appellate Court.\n<\/p>\n
           Put in a nutshell, we find that there had been clear and<\/p>\n
     specific finding in the earlier round of litigation that the land in<\/p>\n
     question was recorded in the name of Dula Ram. The learned RAA<\/p>\n
     in the present proceedings, while passing the order dated<\/p>\n
     22.09.2000, has taken care to record such finding over again in clear<\/p>\n
     and no uncertain terms for valid reasons as noticed supra. Standing<\/p>\n
     this position, invoking of Section 15AAA ibid by the appellants could<\/p>\n
     not have been countenanced being not of appropriate proceedings<\/p>\n
     that the Board had left the appellants free to adopt in the order dated<\/p>\n
     25.06.1991.\n<\/p>\n
           In view of the aforesaid, we are clearly of opinion that there<\/p>\n
     was no case for interference by the writ Court in this matter; and the<\/p>\n
     learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by<\/p>\n
     the petitioners-appellants.\n<\/p>\n
           Consequently, this appeal fails and is, therefore, dismissed.<\/p>\n
     No costs.\n<\/p>\n
MK   (DINESH MAHESHWARI),J.                             (A.M.SAPRE),J.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur Pooran Ram And Anothers vs The Board Of Revenue And Others on 12 May, 2010 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. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,19],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-154124","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-rajasthan-high-court-jodhpur"],"yoast_head":"\nPooran Ram And Anothers vs The Board Of Revenue And Others on 12 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pooran-ram-and-anothers-vs-the-board-of-revenue-and-others-on-12-may-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Pooran Ram And Anothers vs The Board Of Revenue And Others on 12 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pooran-ram-and-anothers-vs-the-board-of-revenue-and-others-on-12-may-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-05-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-03-03T13:45:22+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pooran-ram-and-anothers-vs-the-board-of-revenue-and-others-on-12-may-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pooran-ram-and-anothers-vs-the-board-of-revenue-and-others-on-12-may-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Pooran Ram And Anothers vs The Board Of Revenue And Others on 12 May, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-05-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-03T13:45:22+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pooran-ram-and-anothers-vs-the-board-of-revenue-and-others-on-12-may-2010\"},\"wordCount\":3362,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pooran-ram-and-anothers-vs-the-board-of-revenue-and-others-on-12-may-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pooran-ram-and-anothers-vs-the-board-of-revenue-and-others-on-12-may-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pooran-ram-and-anothers-vs-the-board-of-revenue-and-others-on-12-may-2010\",\"name\":\"Pooran Ram And Anothers vs The Board Of Revenue And Others on 12 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-05-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-03T13:45:22+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pooran-ram-and-anothers-vs-the-board-of-revenue-and-others-on-12-may-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pooran-ram-and-anothers-vs-the-board-of-revenue-and-others-on-12-may-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pooran-ram-and-anothers-vs-the-board-of-revenue-and-others-on-12-may-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Pooran Ram And Anothers vs The Board Of Revenue And Others on 12 May, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Pooran Ram And Anothers vs The Board Of Revenue And Others on 12 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pooran-ram-and-anothers-vs-the-board-of-revenue-and-others-on-12-may-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Pooran Ram And Anothers vs The Board Of Revenue And Others on 12 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pooran-ram-and-anothers-vs-the-board-of-revenue-and-others-on-12-may-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-05-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-03-03T13:45:22+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pooran-ram-and-anothers-vs-the-board-of-revenue-and-others-on-12-may-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pooran-ram-and-anothers-vs-the-board-of-revenue-and-others-on-12-may-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Pooran Ram And Anothers vs The Board Of Revenue And Others on 12 May, 2010","datePublished":"2010-05-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-03T13:45:22+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pooran-ram-and-anothers-vs-the-board-of-revenue-and-others-on-12-may-2010"},"wordCount":3362,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pooran-ram-and-anothers-vs-the-board-of-revenue-and-others-on-12-may-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pooran-ram-and-anothers-vs-the-board-of-revenue-and-others-on-12-may-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pooran-ram-and-anothers-vs-the-board-of-revenue-and-others-on-12-may-2010","name":"Pooran Ram And Anothers vs The Board Of Revenue And Others on 12 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-05-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-03T13:45:22+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pooran-ram-and-anothers-vs-the-board-of-revenue-and-others-on-12-may-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pooran-ram-and-anothers-vs-the-board-of-revenue-and-others-on-12-may-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pooran-ram-and-anothers-vs-the-board-of-revenue-and-others-on-12-may-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Pooran Ram And Anothers vs The Board Of Revenue And Others on 12 May, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/154124","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=154124"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/154124\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=154124"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=154124"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=154124"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}