Alishah And Ors vs Board Of Revenue Ajmer And Ors

This petition is directed against order dated 4.6.14 passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer, whereby a revision petition preferred by the petitioners against the order dated 11.9.07 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority (RAA), Udaipur, affirming the order dated 11.5.05 passed by the Assistant Collector, Rajsamand, allowing the application preferred by the respondents under Section 212 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short "the Act"), granting injunction, stands dismissed. The petitioners have also questioned the legality of the order dated 4.10.17 passed by the Board of Revenue, dismissing the petition preferred by the petitioners seeking review of aforesaid order dated 4.6.14.

The facts relevant are that the respondents preferred a suit for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the lands ad measuring 2.25 bighas, 1 bigha 1 biswa and 1 bigha 6 biswas comprising khasra no.1538, 1539 and 1540 respectively, situated in revenue Village Railmagra, claiming the same to be khatedari land of Daval Peerji/Masjid. The aforesaid khasras were later renumbered as 1832/1, 1832/2, 1832/3 and 1832/4. The suit was accompanied by an application under Section 212 of the Act seeking temporary injunction. After due consideration, the Assistant Collector vide order dated 11.5.05 granted injunction in favour of the plaintiff, the respondents herein, in terms that the petitioners herein shall not alienate or transfer the said land and shall not raise any construction thereon.

Aggrieved by the order dated 11.5.05, the petitioners preferred appeal before the RAA, Udaipur, which stood dismissed vide order dated 11.9.07. The revision petition preferred by the petitioners against the appellate order was dismissed by the Board of Revenue vide order dated 4.6.14. The petitioners preferred petition seeking review of order dated 4.6.14, which was also dismissed by the Board of Revenue vide order dated 4.10.17. Hence, this petition.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that there exists no place of Daval Peer in Railmagra. It is submitted that admittedly, in Jamabandi of Samvat 2057 to 2060, the land has been shown as khatedari land of the petitioners, however, in settlement parcha of Samvat 2021, the said land has been shown as sivay chak doli. Learned counsel submitted that without there being any documentary evidence showing that the said land is khatedari land of Daval Peer, no injunction could have been granted against the recorded khatedar of the land and thus, the RAA and the Board of Revenue have seriously erred in affirming the order passed by the Assistant Collector, granting injunction in favour of the respondents as aforesaid.

Indisputably, in parcha khatoni of Samvat 2021, the land in question is entered as doli land. That apart, as per the Mewar Settlement record the land was entered as punyarth kar maufi khalsa and thus, undoubtedly, the said land in Mewar Settlement, Udaipur, was shown as place of worship. It is pertinent to note that when the petitioners applied for conversion of the land, taking into consideration the objection of the Muslim samaj, the Tehsildar while holding the land to be of 'doli & punyarth', rejected the application preferred on behalf of the petitioners seeking conversion of the land for residential purpose. Thus, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, during the pendency of the lis between the parties lest the status of the land is likely to be changed, the injunction granted by the trial court, affirmed by the Appellate Court, cannot be faulted with.

In the considered opinion of this court, the findings arrived at by the Assistant Collector while granting the injunction, affirmed by the Appellate Court and Revisional Court, cannot be said to be capricious or perverse so as to warrant interference by this court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

In the result, the petition fails, it is hereby dismissed in limine.