Rooparam vs State of Rajasthan and Others

Arun Bhansali, J.—This writ petition is directed against judgment dated 07.09.2012 passed by the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan (''Board''), whereby, the appeal filed by the petitioner against judgment dated 05.03.1993 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner (''RAA'') has been dismissed.

Plaintiffs - Mst. Lichma, Mst. Dakha, Mst. Bhaga and Mst. Sugani all daughters of Chundas filed a suit for declaration, partition and permanent injunction against Hanuman Das and Onkar Das, their brothers and certain transferees from them; it was, inter alia, claimed in the suit that the land in dispute belonged to deceased Chundas, who expired in the year 1968 and the plaintiffs - all daughters of Chundas were his legal heirs along with Hanuman Das and Onkar Das and have equal share in the land in question; it was submitted that the land has been got mutated in the name of Hanuman Das and he has transferred the land without any authority of law and, therefore, the sale deeds are ab initio void and prayed that the sale deeds be cancelled and declared void, the land in question be partitioned and injunction be issued against the defendants not to transfer the land.

The S.D.O. framed six issues and came to the conclusion that in Samvat Year 2012 Hanuman Das was the Khatedar of the land in question and, therefore, under Section 15 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 he was recorded as Khatedar and, as such, the plaintiffs cannot claim any right; regarding the documents Exhibit-3 to Exhibit-18 produced by the plaintiffs, which were the revenue records pertaining to Samvat year 1987 to 2011, it was observed that Chundas was not recorded as Khatedar and as by mutation dated 23.11.1957 the land has been recorded in the name of Hanuman Das, he was entitled to transfer the land and the plaintiffs had no share in the land in question and, consequently, dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs.

The RAA on an appeal filed by the plaintiffs came to the conclusion that from the revenue records i.e. Exhibits-3 to 18, it is apparent that it was Chundas only, who was in possession of the land in question and, therefore, the revenue entries indicating the name of Hanuman Das were incorrect and there was no requirement to get the revenue record corrected in view of the suit for declaration.

On the crucial issues, the RAA observed as under:--

The appeal filed by the plaintiffs was allowed and the suit was decreed and it was held that the plaintiffs were entitled to 1/6th share each along with Hanuman Das and Onkar Das and were entitled to partition and directed the S.D.O. to pass final decree.

Feeling aggrieved, Roopa Ram - petitioner - transferee filed second appeal before the Board.

The Board after hearing the parties, reiterated the findings recorded by the RAA based on the documents Exhibits-2 to 18. The Board, inter alia, observed as under:--

Based on its above findings, it came to the conclusion that from the documentary evidence Exhibits-3 to 18 deceased Chundas was in possession of the disputed land and the RAA did not commit any legal or factual mistake in treating him as the Khatedar of the land in question and, consequently, dismissed the appeal.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the RAA and the Board committed grave error in decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiffs, inasmuch as, Hanuman Das was recorded Khatedar of the land in question since 1957 and the transfer was made in favour of the petitioner in the year 1971; the suit filed by the plaintiffs was barred by limitation and they were estopped from challenging the transfer after such a belated stage; it was further submitted that the S.D.O. had considered all the documents and had reached a correct finding that Hanuman Das was in possession of the land in question in Samvat year 2012 and was conferred Khatedari rights and from the material available on record, it cannot be said that it was Chundas, father of Hanuman Das, who had any right or the land belonged to him as Khatedar and, therefore, the orders impugned deserve to be set aside.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material placed on record.

As noticed hereinbefore, the S.D.O. despite availability of overwhelming evidence regarding Chundas being in possession of the land in question from long before and in Samvat year 2012 i.e. from before Samvat 1988 and documents Exhibits-3 to 18 in this regard were placed on record, wherein, it was only the name of Chundas which was recorded, came to the conclusion that in Samvat year 2012, it was Hanuman Das, who was in possession of the land in dispute and, therefore, he was rightly recorded as Khatedar in the year 1957 under Section 15 of the Act. The said finding of the S.D.O. was apparently against the material available on record and, therefore, the RAA on consideration of the documentary evidence, rightly came to the conclusion that it was Chundas, who was in possession of the land in question from Samvat 1993 to 2012 and, consequently, set aside the finding recorded by the S.D.O. The Board reiterated the findings recorded by the RAA.

Learned counsel for the petitioner failed to point out any perversity in the findings recorded by the RAA/Board and was not able to substantiate as to if Chundas was in possession till the year 2012 and was alive till the year 1968, under what circumstances Hanuman Das could be recorded as Khatedar under Section 15 of the Act and thereafter could deal with the properties as his own property merely based on the revenue entries. The plea raised by learned counsel for the petitioner regarding the delay in filing the suit and/or the plea of estoppel, has apparently no substance, inasmuch as, neither any issue was framed by the S.D.O. nor the plea in this regard was raised by the petitioner either before the RAA or before the Board and even in the present writ petition no ground in this regard has been raised by the petitioner.

In view of the above, the concurrent findings recorded by the RAA and Board do not call for any interference.

Consequently, there is no substance in the writ petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed. The stay petition is also dismissed.