Dismissed

Mohanpuri Goswami v. Board of Revenue Ajmer and Ors.

Rajasthan HC14 Dec 2021CW/123/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court addressed a writ petition challenging the dismissal of a suit regarding land rights. The court held that once land was allotted to the Urban Improvement Trust and mutated in its favour as urban land, revenue court jurisdiction ceased. Consequently, the dismissal order was upheld.

What did the court decide?

The present petition is dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.

Mohanpuri Goswami Vs Board of Revenue Ajmer… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 123/2016

Mohan Puri Goswami

----Petitioner

Versus

Board of Revenue, Ajmer & Ors

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Sharad Kothari
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. DeelipKawadia

¶9

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶10

Order

¶11

14/12/2021

¶12

This writ petition has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

¶13

“(i) the impugned order dated 29/10/2015 (Annexure 10) passed by the Revenue Board, Ajmer may kindly be set aside and the Order dated 23/02/2011 (Annexure 8) passed by the learned Revenue Appellate Authority be restored.

¶14

(ii) it may be declared that the suit filed by the Petitioner under Section 88 and 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 bearing No.150/2006 for the reliefs claimed was maintainable.”

¶15

At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide the impugned order 29.10.2015, the two-Member Bench of the learned Board of Revenue for Rajasthan at Ajmer has allowed the appeal filed by the Urban Improvement Trust (UIT), Udaipur, against the judgment and decree dated 23.02.2011 passed by the learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur, holding that the

¶16

(2 of 5)

¶17

[CW-123/2016]

¶18

revenue court has no jurisdiction to try the suit, as the contentious land in question, upon being allotetd to the UIT, Udaipur, has been mutated in its favour, as per the mutation entry No.2033 dated 05.07.2006.

¶19

Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Board of Revenue suffers from legal infirmity, as the basic dispute in the suit was only between two private parties.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner however, seeks a limited adjudication as to whether the land upon being allotted to the UIT, Udaipur and the same being mutated in its favour, would render the adjudication out of the jurisdiction of the revenue court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment rendered by this Hon’ble Court in Jaswant Singh & two others Vs. Board of Revenue & Ors., reported in 1984 WLN 608 , relevant portion of which reads as under:

¶21

“9. Now Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 provides that all suits and applications of the nature specified in the Third Schedule shall be heard and determined by a revenue court and further it has been provided that no court other than a revenue court shall take cognizance of any such suit or application or of any suit or application based on a cause of action in respect of which any relief could be obtained by means of any such suit or application. The explanation appended to Section 207 provides that if the cause of action is one in respect of which relief might be granted by the revenue court, it is immaterial that the relief asked for from the civil court is greater than, or additional to or is not identical with that which the revenue court may possibly grant. Section 88 of the

¶22

(3 of 5)

¶23

[CW-123/2016]

¶24

Tenancy Act provides for filing of a suit for declaration by a person claiming to be a tenant, in respect of his right as a tenant or for declaration of ins share in a joint tenancy. Further Section 183 of the Tenancy Act provides for filing a suit for ejectment of a trespasser who has taken or retained possession of land without any lawful authority. The suits covered by Section 88 and 183 of the Tenancy Act are included at items No. 5 and 2 respectively in the Third Schedule appended to the Tenancy Act. Thus in respect of matters covered by the aforesaid items included in the Third Schedule, the revenue courts alone have exclusive jurisdiction to entertain suits, for declaration of the plaintiff's right as a tenant of agricultural land and for ejectment of a trespasser therefrom. According to the provisions of Section 207 of the Tenancy Act, the jurisdiction of the revenue court to try a suit of the nature specified in items No. 5 and 23 relating to agricultural tenancies, would be based on the cause of action for filing such suit. The term' cause of action', though n(sic) where defined is now very well understood. It means every fact which would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to judgment. ((sic)See Mohd Khalil Khan v. Mahbub Ali Mian AIR 1949 F.C. 78. It follows that in each and very case the cause of action for filing of the suit shall have to be strictly scrutinized in order to determine whether the suit is exclusively cognizable by a revenue Court or is impliedly cognizable only by a revenue court or is cognizable by a civil court. If more than one reliefs are claimed in the suit, then the jurisdiction of the civil or revenue courts to entertain the suit shall be determined on the basis as to what is the real or substantial or main relief claimed in the suit.”

¶25

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently denied the submissions made on behalf of the

¶26

(4 of 5)

¶27

[CW-123/2016]

¶28

petitioner, while stating that once the land was allotted and mutated in favour of the UIT, the complete stretch of urban land would fall out of the jurisdiction of the revenue court, and thus, the impugned order has been rightly passed by the learned Board of Revenue.

¶29

Learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court in Ganpat Lal & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. Civil Special Appeal (W) Nos.125 and 204/2004, decided on 16.04.2014) , relevant portion of which reads as under:

¶30

“17. Apart from that, it is not in dispute that the land of Khasra No. 123 of village Suthala was acquired by the State Government vide acquisition proceedings, initiated on 22.02.1976 and concluded on 28.10.1976. The possession of the land of Khasra No.123 was handed over to the Rajasthan Housing Board on 16.09.1978 and mutation was also sanctioned in favour of it on 23.01.1980. Similarly, in respect of Khasra No.125, the acquisition proceedings were initiated on 16.08.1979 and concluded on 16.07.1980 and the possession was handed over to the Rajasthan Housing Board on 13.11.1980 and mutation was also sanctioned in its favour on 11.05.1981. The said acquisition proceedings were never challenged by the appellants and, therefore, they became final. The contention of the appellants that the said acquisition proceedings were declared as lapsed vide order dated 14.02.1992, issued by the Deputy Secretary to the Urban Development and Housing Department, is countered by the Rajasthan Housing Board by producing copy of the order dated 11.09.2001, whereby the same authority has withdrawn the order dated 14.02.1992, while observing that the declaration

¶31

(5 of 5)

¶32

[CW-123/2016]

¶33

of lapse of the acquisition proceedings was not in accordance with law.

¶34

The learned Single Judge has rightly held that when the acquisition of the land in question is intact, the suit filed by the appellants for grant of Khatedari rights was not maintainable as per the provisions of sections 63(iii) and 16(vi) of the Act of 1955.”

¶35

After hearing learned counsel for the parties at length as well as perusing the record of the case, this Court, on the strength of the precedent law cited by learned counsel for the respondents, is of the firm opinion that once the land was allotted to the UIT and the same was mutated in its favour as an urban land, then in accordance with the statute, the jurisdiction of the revenue court would no more survives. Thus, the impugned order passed by the learned Board of Revenue is well reasoned and lawful, which does not call for any interference by this Court.

¶36

Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.

¶37

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J.

¶38

152-SKant/-

Mohanpuri Goswami v. Board of Revenue Ajmer and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohanpuri Goswami v. Board of Revenue 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Ramanuj Industries Vs Raj.State Industrial andINV.Cor.Ltd. and Anr.

M/S. Mohd. Khawaja Dying Company Vs Raj.State Industrial and Inv.Cor.Ltd.and Anr.

M/S Tak Textiles Vs Riico and Anr.

Major Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Nathu Ram Vs State of Raj. and Ors.

Lalu Vs Lrs of Lalu