Allowed

Ratana Devi and Anr. v. State and Ors.

Rajasthan HC13 Apr 2023CW/10157/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan allowed a writ petition challenging a demand for a high demarcation fee calculated under a 2015 circular. The court held that since the petitioner applied under the older 2001 circular, authorities cannot apply the 2015 rules retrospectively and must re-calculate the fee as per the 2001 circular.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order directing payment of Rs. 5,55,000/- is quashed. Respondents directed to calculate fee under Circular dated 12.04.2001 and demarcate land if title is lawful.

Ratana Devi and Anr. Vs State and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023/RJJD/009877]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10157/2016

¶4

Ratana Devi W/o Panna Lal Nagal, aged about 50 years, resident of Karni Nagar, Lalgarh, Bikaner through the power of attorney holder Shri Panna Lal Nagal, aged about 52 years, resident of Karni Nagar, Lalgarh, Bikaner.

¶5

Taruna D/o Panna Lal, aged about 23 years, resident of Karni Nagar, Lalgarh, Bikaner.

¶6

----Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Department of Revenue, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶9

The District Collector, Bikaner.

¶10

The Sub Divisional Officer, Bikaner.

¶11

The Tehsildar (Land Record), Bikaner.

¶12

----Respondent

¶13

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.	Pritam Solanki
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	Loon Karan Purohit

¶14

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI

¶15

Order

¶16

13/04/2023

¶17

The present writ petition has been filed under Article

¶18

226/227 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:-

¶19

“(i) by an appropriate writ, order or directions, the impugned Order dated 4.7.2016 may kindly be declared illegal and be quashed and set aside and it may be declared that the application of the petitioner will be governed by the circular dated 12.4.2001 and the circular dated 18.11.2015 be applicable in the present case.

¶20

(ii) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondent be directed to demarcate the land in question with the Police aid.

(2 of 13)

[2023/RJJD/009877]

[CW-10157/2016]

(iii) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the circular dated 18.11.2015 (Annex.33) may kindly be declared illegal and be quashed and set aside.

¶25

(iv) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court considers just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.

¶26

(v) Cost of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner.”

¶27

The petitioner has set up a case that he had purchased a land bearing Khasra Nos.74, 75 and 348, ad measuring 100 bighas in Khasra Nos.74 and 75 and 32 bighas 12 biswas in Khasra No.348 and the same has been substantiated by placing on record a copy of the registered sale-deed dated 24.10.2005 (Annex.1).

¶28

The petitioner hd also purchased another agricultural land from Kanta Devi, Kesav, Madhav, etc., bearing Khasra Nos.74 min, 75 min, 76 and 78 through registered sale-deed dated 24.04.2007, ad measuring 81 bighas 12 biswas. The petitioner had also purchased another piece of land bearing Khasra Nos.76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 83 and 84, ad measuring 353 bighas 6 biswas by way of another registered sale-deed dated 28.03.2014. The petitioner was in possession of the aforementioned land and was cultivating the same but since 04.10.2015, a dispute arose when some persons entered the land in question of the petitioner and claimed the said land to be theirs.

¶29

It came to the knowledge of the petitioner that Shankerlal, Devkishan, Fatehchand, Ganesh Das, Narsingh Das, Shyam Sunder, Kushal Chand, Ghanshyam Das and Megh Raj, who were

(3 of 13)

[2023/RJJD/009877]

[CW-10157/2016]

having the land ad measuring 362 bighas, has sold the said land showing it to be ad measuring 1300 bighas and also got the land registered by way of a forged sale-deed.

¶34

The petitioner submitted an application to the concerned SHO, P.S. Bichhwal on 06.10.2015. The petitioner intended to get the land in dispute demarcated in light of the Circular dated 12.04.2001 (Annex.5). In the said Circular, the concerned person, who was interested in getting the land demarcated was required to deposit travelling allowance, dearness allowance and other allowances.

¶35

In pursuance to of the aforementioned Circular dated 12.04.2001, the petitioner submitted an application on 07.10.2015 and 08.10.2015 to the Tehsildar, Bikaner for demarcation of his land. The petitioner also submitted a complaint to the District Collector, Bikaner dated 08.10.2015 for removing the encroachments and for dis-mentaling the pakka wall around the field of the petitioner. In this complaint, the petitioner has also mentioned that he had already submitted an application for demarcation of his land. The petitioner had also submitted a few applications to the Superintendent of Police, Bikaner ventilating his grievance as well as demarcation of his land.

¶36

The petitioner preferred one complaint dated 23.10.2015 before the Inspector General of Police, Bikaner Range, Bikaner mentioning inter-alia that despite the direction of the Superintendent of Police, Bikaner for demarcation of the land, no action whatsoever was taken by the concerned SHO.

(4 of 13)

[2023/RJJD/009877]

[CW-10157/2016]

Upon such complaint made by the petitioner on 23.10.2015, the SHO, P.S. Bichhwal made a communication to the S.D.O., Bikaner requesting him for demarcation of the land in dispute. Further, the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner made a communication dated 29.10.2015 to the District Collector, Bikaner as well as the Superintendent of Police, Bikaner while requesting them to take appropriate action for demarcation of the land in question and for submitting a detailed inquiry report along with their remarks.

¶41

In furtherance to the aforesaid, the S.D.O., Bikaner made a communication with the Tehsildar, Bikaner dated 02.11.2015 in which it was mentioned that the Tehsildar may prepare a proposal for demarcation of the land of the petitioner or else take appropriate and necessary action.

¶42

In pursuance of the earlier letter written by the S.H.O. on 26.10.2015, the District Collector/Land Records Officer, Bikaner, vide communication dated 09.11.2015, directed the Tehsildar, Bikaner to get the land demarcated with the aid of police. Thereafter, on 19.11.2015, the petitioner again submitted an application to the SDO, Bikaner requesting him for demarcation of his land. In the meanwhile, the Superintendent of Police, Bikaner made a communication dated 09.10.2015 with the concerned SHO, P.S. Bichhwal directing him to get the demarcation of the land in question done and also directed the parties to maintain status quo. The Tehsildar, Land Records, Bikaner made a communication dated 21.12.2015 to the S.H.O., P.S. Bichhwal mentioning in it that the demarcation of the land in question could

(5 of 13)

[2023/RJJD/009877]

[CW-10157/2016]

be made after constituting a Committee for the same. The petitioner submitted reminder dated 27.01.2016 to the concerned authorities reminding them of demarcating the land in question of the petitioner and the same are placed on record as Annex.18.

¶47

The petitioner preferred an application dated 17.02.2016 before the Inspector General of Police and Superintendent of Police, Bbikaner in order to constitute a Committee for demarcation of the land in question.

¶48

The Additional Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner, vide communication dated 17.12.2016, directed the District Collector and Superintendent of Police, Bikaner to take necessary action forthwith.

¶49

The petitioner continuously represented various authorities like Chairman, Human Rights Commissioner; District Collector, Bikaner; S.D.O., Bikaner and Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner ventilating his grievance and requesting the authorities to take appropriate action for demarcation of the land in dispute.

¶50

The Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner made a communication dated 11.05.2016 for taking appropriate action at his own level in regard to the applications dated 19.11.2015, 29.01.2016, 17.02.2016 and 09.03.2016. The Patwari Halka submitted a report dated 20.05.2016 and the relevant portion of the same is reproduced as under:-

¶51

“blh izdkj rglhynkj lkgc chdkusj ds [kkrk foHkkxj vkns”k }kjk fnukad 28-3-14 ds }kjk Jhefr jrunsoh ds [k-u- 75@2 esa 56-05 ch?kk] 76@1 esa 2-04 ch?kk] 77@1 esa 20 ch?kk dqy 67 ch?kk Hkqfe ukekUrdj.k la[;k 836 fnukad 4-4-14 }kjk

(6 of 13)

[2023/RJJD/009877]

[CW-10157/2016]

ntZ gSA ukekUrj.k la[;k 870 o 871 fnukad 16-7-15 }kjk jrunsoh o r:.kk dk fgLlk chvksch “kk[kk t;iqj jksM ds esa jgu ntZ gSA Jhekuth pdxchZ dk eqy yBk (uD”kk) rglhynkj t;iqj Hkstk gqvk gSA”

¶56

The petitioner again preferred an application dated 01.06.2016 before the District Collector, Bikaner requesting him to take appropriate action for demarcation of the land in question. On 08.06.2016, the District Collector, Bikaner directed the Land Settlement Officer, Bikaner to initiate the proceedings of demarcation along with the team of the Department of Revenue. The petitioner submitted an application to the Land Settlement Officer, Bikaner for deposition of the demarcation fee dated 10.06.2016 but the respondent-authorities did not apprise the petitioner of the quantum of the demarcation fee, which ought to have been deposited by the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, submitted a reminder dated 21.06.2016 before the concerned authority.

¶57

The petitioner was shocked when the Land Settlement Officer, Bikaner, vide communication dated 04.07.2016, informed the petitioner that the demarcation fee, which has to be deposited by him, is to the tune of Rs.5,55,000/-. The petitioner approached the respondent-authorities inquiring about the basis upon which the calculation was made by the respondents for demarcation. The petitioner was supplied a copy of the circular dated 03.11.2015 (Annex.33) under the Right to Information Act and relevant portion of the circular is reproduced hereunder:-

[2023/RJJD/009877]

[CW-10157/2016]

(7 of 13)

“lhekKku “kqYd gsrq orZeku esa okLrfod x.kuk dj jkf”k fy;s tkus ds funsZ”k gSA blds LFkku ij vc Hkw&izca/k foHkkx ds ek/;e ls l”kqYd lhekKku djk;s tkus ds lHkh ekeyksa gsrq “kqYd 5000@& ikap gtkj :i;s izfr gSDVs;j rFkk ,d gSDVs;j ls vf/kd jdck gksus ij iw.kZ gSDVS;j dh vfrfjDr jkf”k ns; gksxhA b0Vh,l0@Mhthih,l e”khu ykus o ys tkus dh O;oLFkk vkosnd }kjk Lo; ds Lrj ls dh tk;sxhA”

¶62

The S.D.O., Bikaner, passed an order dated 02.06.2014, whereby a Committee was constituted, comprising of four persons including Tehsildar, Bikaner; SHO, P.S. Bichhwal, Shri Hardayal Amin and a representative of Municipal Corporation/UIT, Bikaner. Further, the District Collector, Bikaner made a communication with the Land Records Officer dated 20.10.2014 for sending the report in order to complete the proceedings of demarcation. The petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.2000/- towards the fee and the copy of the e-challan dated 22.10.2014 is placed on record.

¶63

Vide order dated 28.10.2014, the S.D.O., Bikaner fixed the date for demarcation as 03.11.2014. The petitioner submitted that though the authorities made several communications amongst themselves and thereafter a date was also fixed for demarcation of his land. However, no heed was paid and no action was taken, rather the authorities have wrongly implemented the Circular dated 03.11.2015 upon the petitioner, whereas when the petitioner submitted his application before the concerned authority, the Circular dated 12.04.2001 was in force.

¶64

Learned counsel for the petitioner made following submissions:-

(8 of 13)

[2023/RJJD/009877]

[CW-10157/2016]

➢ That the petitioner had initiated the exercise of demarcation of his land by way of submitting the on-line application dated 07.10.2015 and 08.10.2015 in which name of the petitioner is present as well as it has been specifically written “application for Sima Gyan Misc. (Tehsil)”.

¶69

➢ That at the time when petitioner moved an application for demarcation of land, the circular dated 12.04.2001 was in force and the requirement of the circular was deposition of Travelling Allowance, Dearness Allowance and other allowances.

¶70

➢ That the respondents have wrongly implemented the circular dated 03.11.2015 upon the petitioner and has wrongly calculated the demarcation fee in light of the said circular as the circular, which was in force at the time when the petitioner had submitted his application for demarcation was 12.04.2001 (Annex.5) whereas the respondents have given retrospective effect to the circular dated 03.11.2015 (Annex.33) and the same is highly arbitrary and unjust.

¶71

Learned counsel for the respondents denied the copy of the e-payment made by the petitioner by way of Annex.6, application before the Tehsildar, Bikaner. It is further submitted that Annex.6 was nothing but a receipt issued by e-Mitra Kendra, Bikaner. It is also submitted that such receipt does not prove that to whom the amount mentioned in the receipt had been deposited. Reliance was placed upon Sections 111 and 128 of the Rajasthan Land

(9 of 13)

[2023/RJJD/009877]

[CW-10157/2016]

Revenue Act, 1956 (for short, ‘the Act of 1956’) and the same are reproduced as under:-

¶76

“ 111. Decision of disputes as to boundaries- (1) In case of any dispute concerned any boundaries the Land Records Officer shall decide such dispute, so far as possible, on the basis of exiting survey maps and where this is not possible or such maps are not available, on the basis of actual possession.

¶77

(2) If, in the course of an inquiry into a dispute under this section, the Land Records Officer is unable to satisfy himself as to which party is in the possession or it is shown that possession has been obtained by wrongful dispossession of the lawful occupants within a period of three months previous to the commencement of the inquiry the Land Records Officer shall ascertain by summary inquiry who is the party best entitled to possession and shall then fix the boundary accordingly.

¶78

128. Boundary disputes – All disputes concerned boundaries shall be decided by the Land Records Officer in the manner laid down in Section 111: [Provided that applications in relation to boundaries of fields may be made to any disposed by the Tehsildar in cases where there exists no dispute as to such boundaries but on account of the absence of proper boundary marks there is the likelihood of such a dispute arising.]”

¶79

He further submitted that the petitioner was required to make an application to the Land Records Officer in light of Section 111 of the Act of 1956 as there was a dispute raised by the petitioner in regard to the land in question and the petitioner, at no point of time, had made the application to the Land Records Officer. Therefore, the petitioner’s case was not considered at that point of time. He also submitted that the petitioner, for the first time, submitted an application to the S.D.O., Bikaner on 19.11.2015 for demarcation of the land in question and by that time, the circular dated 03.11.2015 had already come into force

(10 of 13)

[2023/RJJD/009877]

[CW-10157/2016]

and, therefore, the demarcation fee, which was calculated by the respondents while implementing the circular dated 03.11.2015 has rightly been done and thus, there is no illegality or retrospective effect given by the respondents. It is also submitted that the petitioner has, time and again, moved applications to the police authorities whereas the concerned authority, in accordance with Section 111 of the Act of 1956, is the Land Records Officer. 22. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶84

The point of consideration before this Court is whether the petitioner had submitted the application for demarcation of the land in dispute before issuance of Circular dated 03.11.2015 (Annex.33) and whether the respondents have given retrospective effect to the said circular for determining the quantum of demarcation fee.

¶85

The petitioner has moved various applications before the different authorities like S.H.O., P.S. Bichhwal dated 06.10.2015; Tehsildar, Bikaner dated 07.10.2015 and 08.10.2015; the Superintendent of Police, Bikane on 09.10.2015; District Collector, Bikaner dated 08.10.2015; the S.H.O., P.S. Bichhwal dated 23.10.2015; S.D.O., Bikaner on 19.11.2015; Inspector General of Police on 27.01.2016; Chairman, Human Rights Commission on 23.10.2016 and Land Settlement Officer on 10.06.2016.

¶86

It is observed by this Court that upon several applications made by the petitioner to various authorities, the authorities have made several inter-communications amongst themselves directing the Tehsildar, Bikaner; SDO, Bikaner; District Collector, Bikaner

(11 of 13)

[2023/RJJD/009877]

[CW-10157/2016]

and Superintendent of Police, Bikaner to take necessary steps for demarcation of the land of the petitioner.

¶91

The petitioner submitted a complaint dated 08.10.2015 to the District Collector, Bikaner mentioning therein that the petitioner had earlier submitted an application for demarcation of the land in dispute. Further, the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner made a communication dated 29.10.2015 to the District Collector, Bikaner as well as the Superintendent of Police, Bikaner while requesting them to take appropriate action for demarcation of the land in question and for submitting a detailed inquiry report along with their remarks.

¶92

Thus, it cannot be said the petitioner did not file application before the District Collector/Land Records Officer, Bikaner prior to issuance of the Circular dated 03.11.2015 (Annex.33) for demarcation of the land in question and that it was well within knowledge of the District Collector/Land Records Officer that the case of the petitioner for demarcation of the land in question was pending before him. Once the petitioner had submitted the application prior to issuance of the Circular dated 03.11.2015, then the respondents should have determined the quantum of demarcation fee in accordance with the Circular dated 12.04.2001 (Annex.5), whereas the respondents have determined the same in accordance with the Circular dated 03.11.2015, thus, giving retrospective effect to the Circular dated 03.11.2015.

¶93

Upon a specific query made from the learned counsel for the respondents as to who is the Land Records Officer, laid down in the Act of 1956, attention of this Court was drawn towards Section

[2023/RJJD/009877]

[CW-10157/2016]

(12 of 13)

3(i) of the Act of 1956, where the definition of Land Records Officer has been laid down and the same is reproduced hereunder:-

¶98

“ 3(i) ‘Land Records Officer’ shall mean the District Collector and shall include ‘Additional or Assistant Land Records Officer.”

¶99

Thus, the Land Records Officer shall mean “Collector” and the petitioner had duly submitted an application for demarcation of land before the District Collector dated 08.10.2015. The Additional Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner has also made a communication to the District Collector dated 29.10.2015 for removing the encroachments from the land of the petitioner as well as for demarcation of the land of the petitioner. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner has not submitted application to the authority incharge of apprising the issue of demarcation of the land in question of the petitioner. The respondents have wrongly applied the circular dated 03.11.2015 (Annex.33) upon the petitioner for determining the quantum of demarcation fee and the communication dated 04.07.2016 by which the petitioner has been directed to deposit Rs.5,55,000/- as demarcation fee is unjust and arbitrary. The respondents, while considering the fact that the petitioner had duly submitted application to the Land Records Officer/District Collector, Bikaner prior to coming into force the Circular dated 03.11.2015 came into existence, ought to have considered the case of the petitioner for calculating the demarcation fee in light of the Circular dated 12.04.2001.

¶100

Therefore, the impugned order dated 04.07.2016, by which the petitioner has been directed to deposit Rs.5,55,000/- as

(13 of 13)

[2023/RJJD/009877]

[CW-10157/2016]

demarcation fee for the land in question is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to calculate the demarcation fee for the land in question of the petitioner in light of the circular dated 12.04.2001. If the petitioner is otherwise holding a lawful title of the land in question, the respondents, after determining the demarcation fee in light of the circular dated 12.04.2001, are directed to demarcate the land in question of the petitioner.

¶105

With the aforementioned directions, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to the costs.

¶106

The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.

¶107

(DR.NUPUR BHATI),J

¶108

35-skm/-

Ratana Devi and Anr. v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ratana Devi and Anr. v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Samagra Vikas Samiti, Jodhpur Vs State of Rajasthan

Prabhu Lal Nayak Vs Jumbo Finvest (India) Ltd.

Narayan Singh Manaklao Vs State of Rajasthan

Lrs of Smt. Shanti Devi Vs State and Ors.

Jitendra Vs State of Rajasthan

M/S Shri Bhawani Matals Vs the Rajasthan State Industrila Dev.and Invest. Corp.