Allowed

Pramod Bagra v. B O R Ajmer and Ors.

Rajasthan HC3 Nov 2016CW/4411/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the Board of Revenue's order refusing a reference to open a land entry. The Court set aside the order as sketchy and unreasoned, noting the Settlement Officer lacked authority to change revenue entries and the Board failed to address delay or state interest.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 20th February, 2013 is set aside with remand for afresh decision.

Pramod Bagra Vs B O R Ajmer and Ors. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4411/2013

¶4

Pramod Bagra son of Shri Devi Sahay Sharma, aged about 37 years, resident of Village Chounp, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur (Rajasthan).

¶5

---Petitioner Versus

¶6

The Board of Revenue, Ajmer (Rajasthan), through its Registrar,

¶7

The Additional Collector (III), Jaipur (Rajasthan),

¶8

The State of Rajasthan, through the Tehsildar, Tehsil Amer

¶9

(Rajasthan),

¶10

Gopal Lal son of Shri Ruda

¶11

Sedu Ram son of Shri Ruda

¶12

Sitaram son of Shri Ruda

¶13

Hajari Lal son of Shri Ruda

¶14

Babulal son of Shri Ruda

¶15

Smt. Gyarsi wife of Shri Ruda

¶16

Jagdish son of Shri Kanha

¶17

Rameshwar Prasad son of Shri Kanha

¶18

Bheru Lal son of Kanha

¶19

Radhey Shyam son of Shri Kanha

¶20

Mukut Bihari @ Lallu son of Shri Nathulal

¶21

Shankar Lal son of Shri Nathulal

¶22

Sita Devi wife of Lallulal

¶23

Gajanand son of Gopal

¶24

All by caste Brahman, residents of Village Chounp, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur (Rajasthan).

¶25

--Respondents

¶26

¶27

DATE OF ORDER : 03/11/2016 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI

¶28

Mr. Prahlad Sharma, for petitioner Mr. Dharmendra Pareek, Addl GC,for the State Mr. Ram Manohar Sharma, for respondent/s

¶29

By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the order dated 20^th February, 2013 passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer. The order aforesaid has been passed on a reference by the Additional Collector, Jaipur regarding opening of entry of land recorded as “Gair Mumkin Pahad”. The reference has been answered by the Board of Revenue holding it to be delayed by 45 years. The Board of Revenue found that litigation between parties exists and out of three suits between them, two have already been decided leaving one. The land in dispute was recorded in the name of private respondents by the Settlement Officer vide order dated 19.08.1963.

¶30

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that no limitation is provided for making reference to the Board of Revenue yet taking it to be a ground, reference has not been answered by the Board of Revenue.

¶31

It is further stated that Settlement Officer has no authority to change the entry in the revenue record unless an order is passed by the competent authority or the court. No order of competent authority exists in the case in hand thus

¶32

¶33

impugned order passed by the Board of Revenue deserves to be set aside with remand of the case for answering reference on its merit.

¶34

Learned counsel for the private respondents has contested the writ petition. It is submitted that reference was not maintainable at the instance of individual and otherwise no interest of the State exists thus reference has rightly been answered by the Board of Revenue adverse to the petitioner. The Board of Revenue has even considered the inter se litigation between the parties. The locus of the petitioner is not coming out to seek reference.

¶35

It is lastly urged that land is in possession of the petitioner for last more than 45 years before the order passed by the Board of Revenue. It was recorded in the name of private respondents on the order passed by the Settlement Officer on 19.08.1963.

¶36

Learned counsel for the State has also contested the writ petition. He submits that apart from delay, reference has not been decided in favour of the petitioner as interest of the State does not exist.

¶37

I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for petitioners and perused the record.

¶38

In pursuance of the application, reference order was

¶39

¶40

passed by the Additional Collector on 24.09.1963. The land of “Gair Mumkin Pahad” has been recorded in the name of private respondents. The order for it was passed by the Settlement Officer without an order by the competent court or the authority. The Settlement Officer is not entitled or authorised to change the entries in the revenue record as held in the case of State of Raj. Vs. Jogaram, reported in 1994 RRD 266 . It is, however, a fact that reference has been made after lapse of 45 years if it is counted from the date of change of the entry in the revenue record. The Board of Revenue has ignored that the period or the delay is to be counted, if any, from the date of knowledge about opening of entry in the name of private respondents. The issue aforesaid has not been considered because delay can be attributed against the petitioner if he was knowing about the entry but did not prefer application for reference. The reference of the civil suit between the parties has been given but learned counsel for petitioner submits that no suit or any other litigation had ever been preferred by him, rather, it is by others.

¶41

In view of above and otherwise no limitation is provided to make reference to the Board of Revenue, it should have been answered after considering the facts available on record. The issue as to when petitioner could know about the change

¶42

¶43

of entry in the revenue record, has not been referred by the Board of Revenue. The conclusions have been drawn by the Board of Revenue in Paras 8 and 9 of the impugned order without dealing with all the issues raised by the parties. The judgments of this court in the case of Chiman Lal Vs. State of Raj. & Ors., reported in 2000 (2) RLR 39 and in the case of Smt. Kasturi Bai & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., reported in 2002 (5) WLC (Raj.) 267 are also relevant on the issue of delay, if any.

¶44

A sketchy and unreasoned order has been passed while answering the reference adverse to the petitioner. It is also in ignorance of the fact that interest of the State is affected if land of “Gair Mumkin Pahad” has been allotted and otherwise how it is going to be cultivated, if it is recorded to be “Gair Mumkin Pahad”. The issue aforesaid could not be answered by the Government Counsel. In any case, it is not a case of allotment but change of entry in the revenue record. The land in dispute was earlier recorded as “Sivai Chak” and “Gair Mumkin Pahad” thereupon and the Settlement Officer has changed the entries without having authority. The issue of delay and other issues were required to be considered properly.

¶45

In view of above, impugned order passed by the Board of

¶46

¶47

Revenue dated 20^th February, 2013 is set aside with remand of the case for afresh decision of all the issues after hearing the parties.

¶48

The writ petition is allowed with the aforesaid.

¶49

[M.N.BHANDARI], J. FRBOHRA

Pramod Bagra v. B O R Ajmer and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pramod Bagra v. B O R Ajmer and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajendra Jhalani Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Gopal Vs Sukh Singh and Ors.

Paras Ram and Another Vs Smt Brijlata Khandelwal

M U Institute of Edu Sansthan Vs Nrc - Ncte

Ideal Pub Shikshan Sansthan Vs State Education Department Ors.

Sardul Singh Vs State Transport Dep Ors.