Writ petitions challenging revenue orders vesting land in a respondent as a khatedar under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 were dismissed due to laches and lack of judicial perversity in concurrent findings of fact.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
(1) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 7739/2012
RIDHKARAN @ RADHA KRISHAN S/O SHRI NARAIN AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, BY CASTE DAROGA, R/O LAWA, DISTT. TONK (DECEASED)
all are by caste Daroga R/o Village Lawa, Distt. Tonk
……...PETITIONERS
VERSUS
……..NON PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS
(2) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3625/2012
RIDHKARAN @ RADHA KRISHAN S/O SHRI NARAIN AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, BY CASTE DAROGA, R/O LAWA, DISTT. TONK (DECEASED)
(2 of 5)
[CW-7739/2012]
all are by caste Daroga R/o Village Lawa, Distt. Tonk
……...PETITIONERS
VERSUS
……..NON PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS
Both are resident of Lawa, Tehsil Malpura, Distt. Tonk
(3 of 5)
[CW-7739/2012]
7/2 Narpat
7/3 Ram Lal 7/4 Rameshwar
7/5 Chhota
All are S/o Chotu
7/6 Bhuri widow of Chotu
7/7 Norti D/o Chotu
All are by caste Daroga R/o Village Lawa, Tehsil Malpura, Distt. Tonk
Performal-Respondent
_____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bharat Yadav For Respondent(s) : None present
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.BHANDARI
Order
17/08/2017
By these writ petitions, a challenge is made to the order dated 30th December, 1989 passed by the Assistant Collector & Executive Magistrate as well as the order dated 30th March, 1977 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Malpura and the orders dated 30th November, 1999 and dated 12th October, 1999 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Tonk and finally the order dated 22nd December, 2011 passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer.
(4 of 5)
[CW-7739/2012]
The petitioner as well as respondent preferred suits for declaration and permanent injunction, however, respondent Nathu did not press the suit for declaration of khatedari rights. The suit preferred by the petitioner was dismissed not only on the ground of delay in maintaining the suit but taking into consideration the entry in the revenue record at the time of enactment of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short “the Act of 1955” ). The name of respondent-Nathu was recorded thus by virtue of the Act of 1955, he became khatedar. The appeal preferred by the petitioner before the Revenue Appellate Authority was also dismissed followed by dismissal of the appeal by the Board of Revenue. In view of the above, there exists concurrent finding of fact against the petitioner. So far as suit preferred by respondentNathu for permanent injunction is concerned, it was decreed as he was recorded as khatedar.
It is not in dispute that name of respondent-Nathu entered in the revenue record prior to the Act of 1955 and suit to challenge his khatedari rights was filed in the year 1972 i.e. after lapse of more than 17 years from the date of enactment of the Act of 1955 without explanation of delay. As per Khasra Girdawari of Samvat 2017 till 2022, possession was lying with Nathu thus petitioner was knowing about the possession and the entries in the revenue record but did not file the suit within the period of limitation.
It is also a fact that Nathu was recorded as khatedar at the time of enactment of the Act of 1955 thus by virtue of Section 19 of the Act of 1955, he became khatedar.
(5 of 5)
[CW-7739/2012]
Taking into consideration the concurrent finding of fact recorded by all the revenue courts and as I do not find any perversity or illegality so as to cause interference therein thus both the writ petitions are dismissed. A copy of this order be placed in each connected file.
(MN BHANDARI) J.
FRBOHRA
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the concurrent findings of fact regarding the belated challenge to khatedari rights recorded under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act attract interference.
Whether the writ petitions challenging the vesting of land as khatedari in possession of the respondent are maintained.
Whether the delay in filing the suit to challenge khatedari rights is a valid ground for dismissal of the writ petition.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ridhkaran @ Radha Krishan ... (deceased) and others
Board of Revenue, Ajmer
Sub-Division Officer, Malpura
Tehsildar, Malpura
Nathu S/o Shri Rodu
M.N. Bhandari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
