AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
6 paragraphs · 278 wordsGautam Kumar Choudhary, J
Petitioners had purchased the land, and their name was duly mutated in Register II, and jamabandi is running in their name. Petitioners are aggrieved for the rent being not received and the instant writ petition has been filed for a direction to respondent no.5 to accept the rent.
It is submitted by learned counsel on behalf of petitioners that the land in question was duly purchased by the petitioners and after mutation, entry of their names were made in Register II in different mutation cases. Despite the running of Jamabandi in their names, rent is not being received by the authority concerned in view of order dated 29.09.2011, memo no.2620. It is submitted by the learned counsel that on similar facts situation, memo no.2640 dated 30.09.2011, was under challenge in W.P. (C) No.4621 of 2021 in which it was held that restriction on acceptance of rent from Jamabandi Raiyat and transfer of those lands were not sustainable and direction was given for accepting rent.
Learned counsel on behalf of State does not dispute the assertions made on behalf of the petitioners on facts and law.
Without entering into the right, title and interest of the petitioners on the land in questions, in view of the fact that they are Jamabandi Raiyats, have not been cancelled and therefore, the respondents-State authorities are directed to receive rent on their behalf. The restriction imposed by memo no.2640 dated 30.09.2011 and memo no.2620 dated 29.09.2011 on accepting rent from the petitioners, who are admittedly Jamabandi Raiyats, is not sustainable and accordingly, set aside.
Writ Petition is allowed. Interlocutory Application, if any, is disposed of.