{"id":9437,"date":"1994-11-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1994-11-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajeshwar-vs-board-of-revenue-on-15-november-1994"},"modified":"2018-01-24T15:40:54","modified_gmt":"2018-01-24T10:10:54","slug":"rajeshwar-vs-board-of-revenue-on-15-november-1994","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajeshwar-vs-board-of-revenue-on-15-november-1994","title":{"rendered":"Rajeshwar vs Board Of Revenue on 15 November, 1994"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Rajeshwar vs Board Of Revenue on 15 November, 1994<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1995 SCC (1) 339, \t JT 1994 (7)\t440<\/div>\n
Author: B Jeevan Reddy<\/div>\n
Bench: Jeevan Reddy, B.P. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nRAJESHWAR\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nBOARD OF REVENUE\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT15\/11\/1994\n\nBENCH:\nJEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J)\nBENCH:\nJEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J)\nAHMADI A.M. (CJ)\n\nCITATION:\n 1995 SCC  (1) 339\t  JT 1994 (7)\t440\n 1994 SCALE  (4)956\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nB.P  JEEVAN REDDY, J.- The appeal is preferred\tagainst\t the
\njudgment  of  a learned Single Judge of the  Allahabad\tHigh
\nCourt dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
2.   One Todar Mal had three sons-Lekhi Ram, Attar Singh and
\nMurari\tLal.  Lekhi Ram died in 1953.  He had no  sons.\t  He
\nleft behind his wife Anandi Devi and a daughter Shanti Devi.
\nIn the year 1943, Lekhi Ram and Attar Singh (who too did not
\nhave  any  sons) executed a will in respect of\ttheir  joint
\nfamily\tproperties in favour of Murari Lal.  Disputes  arose
\nbetween\t Anandi Devi and Murari Lal soon after the death  of
\nLekhi Ram in 1953.  While the dispute was pending before the
\nPanchayat Adalat Niwadi, District Meerut (in Case Nos.\t31\/1
\nand 31\/2 of 1983) a settlement was arrived at between Anandi
\nDevi  and Murari Lal, which was reduced to writing on  18-7-
\n1953   and   filed  before  the\t  Panchayat   Adalat.\t The
\nmemo\/application filed by the parties reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “In the above case, we, both the parties\thave
\n\t      made  mutual  compromise.\t Both  parties\twill
\n\t      abide by it and hence would have no objection.
\n\t      The decision is as under:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      The property assigned to Smt Anandi :   3258\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t—-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t2111\/2
\n\t       309<\/span>\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       —\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       31\/8 Khewat\/100
\n\t      Khewat 97 3361\t 3362 Khewat 26\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\t—-\t —-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\t8111\/8\t 911
\n\t       643  668 742 812 2734 292782 2924\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       —  — — — —- —— —-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       111\/1 1\/1 1\/ 1\/\t111\/ 111\/     1\/
\n\t      Khewat  No.  48 solely belongs to\t Smt  Anandi
\n\t      which  Lekhi  Ram purchased by sale  deed\t and
\n\t      Anandi has right upon them.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      Out  of  ancestral Khewat No.  107  which\t was
\n\t      willed by Lekhi Ram in favour of Murari Lal, 4
\n\t      numbers  were given to Anandi by\tMurari\tLal.
\n\t      The  one\tKhata  whose  boundaries  as   under
\n\t      176\/111\/1 3022\/1\/1 306\/2\/4 1008\/11 Khewat\t 107
\n\t      boundaries bazar in the East, in West with Ch.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      341<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      Jaghir  Singh  and  Bishambar  in\t the   North
\n\t      courtyard\t and  pathway  South  ahata  Chandra
\n\t      Swarup and Khewat 72 was obtained by Lekhi Ram
\n\t      by sale deed.  Except for these 4 numbers, the
\n\t      property\tin  favour  of\tMurari\tLal  in\t the
\n\t      remaining part of the will consists of  Khewat
\n\t      97,  93, 107, 143, 16, 228, 247, 125  and\t 126
\n\t      and  out of 2923\/1\/4 fourth biswa is  that  of
\n\t      Anandi.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      TI of Anandi
\n\t      18-7-1953
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t    Sd\/
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t Murari Lal”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
 3.  By\t an  order  dated  14-9-1953  the  Panchayat  Adalat
\ndisposed  of  the  aforesaid  cases in\tterms  of  the\tsaid
\ncompromise.  The order of the Panchayat Adalat reads thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “After  his  death a dispute arose  about\t the
\n\t      property\tof Lekhi Ram son of Todar Mal.\t One
\n\t      application was filed for transfer Entry\t31\/1
\n\t      by Smt Anandi, widow of Lekhi Ram.  The  other
\n\t      application  31\/2 was filed in 1953 by  Murari
\n\t      Lal,  brother of Lekhi Ram.  Both the  parties
\n\t      describe\tthemselves  as heirs of\t Lekhi\tRam.
\n\t      File  has\t been  prepared\t but  parties\thave
\n\t      reached a compromise which is decreed.  Murari
\n\t      Lal has filed a will dated 20-11-1943 which is
\n\t      a\t registered  will  of Lekhi  Ram  and  Attar
\n\t      Singh.   A perusal of will shows the share  of
\n\t      late Lekhi Ram in Khewat Nos. 93 and 97,\t107,
\n\t      143, and 16, 128, 247, 125, 126 and the house.
\n\t      These were acquired by Murari Lal after demise
\n\t      of   Lekhi   Ram.\t  Besides  this\t  there\t  is
\n\t      residential  and agricultural landed  property
\n\t      of  Lekhi Ram which is self-acquired which  is
\n\t      apart   from  the\t will  and  Anandi  is\t the
\n\t      permanent owner of these properties.  They are
\n\t      now  relatives  and  they\t do  not  have\t any
\n\t      litigation  in future.  Therefore\t Murari\t Lal
\n\t      who  is owner of 176\/111\/4,  3022\/19,  306\/2\/4
\n\t      and  1008\/9, Khewat 107 and the house  bounded
\n\t      by  bazar in East, house of Raghubir Singh  in
\n\t      the  West,  courtyard and public\tway  in\t the
\n\t      North  and ahata Chandra Swarup in  the  South
\n\t      has given the same to Smt Anandi.\t Smt  Anandi
\n\t      has no connection with the remaining  property
\n\t      willed by Lekhi Ram by deed dated\t 20-11-1943.
\n\t      Murari Lal has no claim over the self-acquired
\n\t      property of Lekhi Ram which is not part of the
\n\t      will.   The parties have taken  possession  of
\n\t      their  shares by compromise.   Therefore\tboth
\n\t      the applications are decided with the  consent
\n\t      of the parties.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\tSd\/-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\t\t       Seal Adalat Panchayat
\n\t\t\t\t    Chiranji Lal Sarpanch.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
4.  On\t5-4-1954  Anandi Devi executed a  deed\tof  gift  in
\nrespect\t of her properties in favour of the  appellants\t who
\nare the sons of her daughter Shanti Devi.  The execution  of
\nthis  gift  deed gave rise to a fresh  round  of  litigation
\nbetween\t Murari\t Lal  on one side and Anandi  Devi  and\t her
\ngrandsons  (appellants herein) on the other.   This  dispute
\ncame to be disposed of by an
\n342<\/span>
\norder  dated 1 8-1-1957 passed by the Additional  Collector,
\nMeerut.\t  It  was  an appeal  preferred\t by  the  appellants
\nagainst\t the  orders of Tehsildar and  Assistant  Collector,
\nGhaziabad  directing that Anandi Devi should be recorded  as
\nan  ‘asami’ during her lifetime.  The contention  of  Murari
\nLal  was that Anandi Devi had only a life  interest  whereas
\nthe case of tile appellants and Anandi Devi was that she had
\nall  absolute  title  to tile properties  mentioned  in\t the
\naforesaid  memo\t of compromise.\t  The  Additional  Collector
\ndecided that the said question shall be left open for  being
\nagitated  after\t the death of Anandi Devi  to  which  course
\ncounsel\t for  both  the\t parties  agreed.   The\t  concluding
\nparagraph  of  the  Additional Collector’s  order  reads  as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “The result is that in view of my finding, the
\n\t      above appeal is allowed and Tehsildar’s  order
\n\t      is  set aside.  The ‘Tehsildar is directed  to
\n\t      enter  the names of Rajeshwar and\t Brijeshwar-
\n\t      appellants on the disputed plots including the
\n\t      three plots as corrected as bhumidhar in place
\n\t      of  Smt  Anandi Devi for\ther  lifetime.\t The
\n\t      question\tof mutation after her lifetime\twill
\n\t      remain open for reconsideration.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
5.   In the year 1968, a notification was issued Linder\t the
\nprovisions  of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act,\t1953
\nin  respect of the said village.  Certain  proceedings\ttook
\nplace between Anandi Devi and Murari Lal Linder the said Act
\nbut these disputes, it appears, related to only some of\t the
\nlands.\t Murari’s case was that the name of Anandi Devi\t was
\nwrongly\t recorded in respect of certain of his lands,  which
\nhe  wanted to be rectified.  In these proceedings copies  of
\ncompromise  memo, judgment of the Panchayat Adalat  and\t the
\nwill  executed\tby Lekhi Ram and Attar Singh  in  favour  of
\nMurari\tLal  (1943) were filed.\t The  Consolidation  Officer
\ndirected that the entries should be made in accordance\twith
\nthe  terms of the compromise memo and that ally\t entries  to
\nthe contrary should be rectified.\n<\/p>\n
6.   Anandi Devi died in the year 1980.\t Murari Lal  applied
\nto  the Tehsildar to mutate the lands in the name of  Anandi
\nDevi  in his name on the basis that Anandi Devi had  only  a
\nlife interest in those lands.  The Tehsildar directed Murari
\nLal to obtain a declaration in a regular suit.\t Accordingly
\nMurari\tLal  filed  the\t suit  (out  of\t which\tthe  present
\nproceedings arise) under Section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari
\nAbolition  and Lands Reforms Act.  The appellants  contested
\nthe   same  and\t raised\t a  preliminary\t objection  to\t the
\nmaintainability\t of the suit.  The Revenue Court framed\t two
\npreliminary issues on the basis of the said objections.\t The
\ntwo ‘issues are:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Issue 1. Whether the suit is maintainable  in
\n\t      view of the change of
\n\t      identify\t of   the  land\t in  suit   due\t  to
\n\t      consolidation proceedings?
\n\t      Issue 2. Whether the Suit Is barred by Section
\n\t      49 of the U.PC.H.Act.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
7.   The  trial\t court\tdecided\t the  issues  against\ttile
\nplaintiff Murari Lal.  Accordingly, he dismissed the suit on
\n23-8-1982.  An appeal preferred by Murari Lal was  dismissed
\nby  the\t Commissioner,\tMeerut on  14-11-1982.\t Murari\t Lal
\ncarried the matter in second appeal to the Board of Revenue
\n343<\/span>
\nwhich allowed it.  The Board of Revenue held the suit to  be
\nmaintainable  and  accordingly remitted the  matter  to\t the
\ntrial  court  to try the suit on merits.  The order  of\t the
\nBoard  of  Revenue was questioned by the appellants  in\t the
\nAllahabad  High\t Court in Writ Petition No.  12678  of\t1985
\nwhich  has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge  under
\nthe impugned order.\n<\/p>\n
8.   Shri   Sanyal,  learned  counsel  for  the\t  appellants
\nsubmitted that the memo of compromise dated 13-7-1953  makes
\nit clear that so far as the separate properties of Lekhi Ram
\nwere  concerned,  they\twere admitted to  be  the  exclusive
\nproperty  of  Anandi  Devi and so far as  the  joint  family
\nproperties  of Lekhi Ram, which were willed away by  him  to
\nMurari Lal are concerned, Murari Lal gave four plots out  of
\nthem  to  Anandi  Devi absolutely.  Thus,  says\t the  teamed
\ncounsel,  all  the properties in possession of\tAnandi\tDevi
\nwere her absolute properties which passed to the  appellants
\nunder  the  deed of gift executed by  her.   He,  therefore,
\nsubmitted  that\t the  High Court as well  as  the  Board  of
\nRevenue\t were  in  error in holding that  according  to\t the
\naforesaid   memo  of  compromise  or  the  orders   of\t the
\nauthorities  passed thereafter, Anandi Devi had only a\tlife
\ninterest  in the said properties.  The learned\tcounsel\t for
\nthe respondent Murari Lal, however, supported the  reasoning
\nand conclusion of the Board of Revenue and the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
9. The memo of compromise is really in two paragraphs.\t The
\nfirst paragraph deals with the separate properties of  Lekhi
\nRam.   It recites that the properties mentioned in the\tsaid
\npara, which were purchased by Lekhi Ram under sale deed, are
\nthe properties of Smt Anandi Devi ‘solely’ and that she\t has
\nright  upon them.  The second para deals with what it  calls
\nthe  ancestral properties of Lekhi Ram which were willed  in
\nfavour\tof  Murari Lal.\t Out of these lands,  four  numbers,
\nspecified  in  the  said para were given by  Murari  Lal  to
\nAnandi\tDevi.  (They are- 1765\/111\/1, 3022\/1\/1,\t 306\/2\/4,  1
\n008\/1 1 and a house.) The learned counsel for the appellants
\nis probably right in pointing out that there are no words in
\nthis  compromise  memo to the effect that  the\tinterest  of
\nAnandi\tDevi  shall only be a life interest.   In  fact\t any
\nambiguity in the language of this compromise memo, says\t the
\ncounsel, is cleared by the judgment of the Panchayat  Adalat
\ndated  14-9-1953.   The\t order states  that  Lekhi  Ram\t had
\ncertain self-acquired properties of his own, of which Anandi
\nDevi  shall  be the permanent owner.  The  judgment  further
\nrecords that out of the lands willed by Lekhi Ram in  favour
\nof Murari Lal, four items of land and a house (boundaries of
\nwhich were given in the order) have been given to Smt Anandi
\nDevi  and that the latter shall have no connection with\t the
\nremaining  properties  willed  by Lekhi\t Ram  and  similarly
\nMurari\tLal  shall  have no  claim  over  the  self-acquired
\nproperties  of Lekhi Ram, which were not the  subject-matter
\nof the will.  The judgment undoubtedly records that  parties
\nhave   taken  possession  of  their  respective\t shares\t  in
\naccordance with the compromise between them.  But these\t are
\nthe merits of the dispute which are yet to be gone into.\n<\/p>\n
10.  So\t far  as the order of Additional  Collector,  Meerut
\ndated  IS-  1  – 1951 is concerned, it\tkeeps  the  question
\nconcerning the nature of Anandi Devi’s
\n344<\/span>
\ninterest  open.\t  The  order expressly says  that  the\tsaid
\nquestion  can  be agitated after the death of  Anandi  Devi.
\nInsofar\t as  the  order\t of  the  Consolidation\t Officer  is
\nconcerned  it  is  evident that it does not  deal  with\t the
\nnature\tand  character\tof Anandi’s  interest  in  the\tsaid
\nproperties.   Anandi  Devi was alive at that  time  and\t the
\ndispute\t as to the nature of her interest was to  be  raised
\nonly  after her lifetime as per the order of the  Additional
\nCollector  referred  to above and to which course  both\t the
\nparties\t had  agreed.  Be that as it may, the order  of\t the
\nConsolidation Authority does not show that the said question
\nwas  gone into or pronounced upon by it in the\tsaid  order.
\nIt is on these facts that the questions at issue have to  be
\ndecided.   Of  the  two preliminary issues,  the  first\t one
\nraises the question whether the suit is maintainable in view
\nof  the\t change\t of  identity  of  the\tsuit  lands  due  to
\nconsolidation proceedings.  We do not think that the  change
\nof  identity  of the lands in the  course  of  consolidation
\nproceedings  has any effect upon the rights of the  parties.
\nIt would only be a case of substitution of one property\t for
\nthe other.  The title in the previous property gets attached
\nto  the substituted property.  The second issue\t raises\t the
\nquestion whether the present suit is barred by Section 49 of
\nthe U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.\t Section 49 reads as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “49.     Bar    to    civil     jurisdiction.-\n<\/p>\n
\t      Notwithstanding  anything\t contained  in\t any
\n\t      other  law  for the time being in\t force,\t the
\n\t      declaration  and\tadjudication  of  rights  of
\n\t      tenure-holders in respect of land lying in  an
\n\t      area, for which a notification has been issued
\n\t      under   sub-section  (2)\tof  Section  4,\t  or
\n\t      adjudication  of any other rights arising\t out
\n\t      of consolidation proceedings and in regard  to
\n\t      which a proceeding could or ought to have been
\n\t      taken  under  this  Act,\tshall  be  done\t  in
\n\t      accordance with the provisions of this Act and
\n\t      no Civil or Revenue Court shall entertain\t any
\n\t      suit  or proceeding with respect to rights  in
\n\t      such land or with respect to any other matters
\n\t      for which a proceeding could or ought to\thave
\n\t      been taken under this Act.”\n<\/p>\n
11.  We are of the opinion that there is no occasion for the
\nbar in Section 49 coming into play in this case, as  rightly
\npointed out by the High Court in the impugned judgment.\t  As
\npointed\t out  hereinabove,  the\t nature\t of  Anandi   Devi’s
\ninterest in the suit properties was not (sic decided  under)
\nthe  Consolidation Act.\t Only certain errors were  rectified
\nto  accord with the compromise.\t Further since\tAnandi\tDevi
\nwas alive at that time it cannot also be said that the\tsaid
\nquestion ought to have gone into in those proceedings.\t For
\nthe  above reasons it must be held that the suit  could\t not
\nhave been dismissed as not maintainable on the basis of\t the
\naforesaid  two preliminary issues.  The\t appeal\t accordingly
\nfails  and  is\tdismissed.  There shall be no  order  as  to
\ncosts.\n<\/p>\n
12.  It is unfortunate that this litigation is going on over
\nthe last forty years and the end is still not in sight.\t  We
\nexpect\tthe authorities, which are seized of the dispute  to
\ngive it an expeditious disposal.\n<\/p>\n
346<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Rajeshwar vs Board Of Revenue on 15 November, 1994 Equivalent citations: 1995 SCC (1) 339, JT 1994 (7) 440 Author: B Jeevan Reddy Bench: Jeevan Reddy, B.P. (J) PETITIONER: RAJESHWAR Vs. RESPONDENT: BOARD OF REVENUE DATE OF JUDGMENT15\/11\/1994 BENCH: JEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J) BENCH: JEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J) AHMADI A.M. (CJ) […]<\/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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-9437","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nRajeshwar vs Board Of Revenue on 15 November, 1994 - 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\/rajeshwar-vs-board-of-revenue-on-15-november-1994\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Rajeshwar vs Board Of Revenue on 15 November, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajeshwar-vs-board-of-revenue-on-15-november-1994\" \/>\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=\"1994-11-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-01-24T10:10:54+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajeshwar-vs-board-of-revenue-on-15-november-1994#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajeshwar-vs-board-of-revenue-on-15-november-1994\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Rajeshwar vs Board Of Revenue on 15 November, 1994\",\"datePublished\":\"1994-11-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-24T10:10:54+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajeshwar-vs-board-of-revenue-on-15-november-1994\"},\"wordCount\":2367,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajeshwar-vs-board-of-revenue-on-15-november-1994#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajeshwar-vs-board-of-revenue-on-15-november-1994\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajeshwar-vs-board-of-revenue-on-15-november-1994\",\"name\":\"Rajeshwar vs Board Of Revenue on 15 November, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1994-11-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-24T10:10:54+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajeshwar-vs-board-of-revenue-on-15-november-1994#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajeshwar-vs-board-of-revenue-on-15-november-1994\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajeshwar-vs-board-of-revenue-on-15-november-1994#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Rajeshwar vs Board Of Revenue on 15 November, 1994\"}]},{\"@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":"Rajeshwar vs Board Of Revenue on 15 November, 1994 - 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\/rajeshwar-vs-board-of-revenue-on-15-november-1994","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Rajeshwar vs Board Of Revenue on 15 November, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajeshwar-vs-board-of-revenue-on-15-november-1994","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1994-11-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-01-24T10:10:54+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajeshwar-vs-board-of-revenue-on-15-november-1994#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajeshwar-vs-board-of-revenue-on-15-november-1994"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Rajeshwar vs Board Of Revenue on 15 November, 1994","datePublished":"1994-11-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-24T10:10:54+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajeshwar-vs-board-of-revenue-on-15-november-1994"},"wordCount":2367,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajeshwar-vs-board-of-revenue-on-15-november-1994#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajeshwar-vs-board-of-revenue-on-15-november-1994","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajeshwar-vs-board-of-revenue-on-15-november-1994","name":"Rajeshwar vs Board Of Revenue on 15 November, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1994-11-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-24T10:10:54+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajeshwar-vs-board-of-revenue-on-15-november-1994#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajeshwar-vs-board-of-revenue-on-15-november-1994"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajeshwar-vs-board-of-revenue-on-15-november-1994#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Rajeshwar vs Board Of Revenue on 15 November, 1994"}]},{"@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\/9437","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=9437"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9437\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=9437"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=9437"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=9437"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}