Dismissed

Mishri Lal Son of Shri Jeevan Lal v. Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer

Rajasthan HC18 Sept 2023CW/4559/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a writ petition filed under Article 227 challenging the quashing of an appeal against a land division dispute. The Court held that the Board of Revenue's order was well-reasoned, based on material evidence including Jamabandi records, and no palpable error justified interference.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; pending applications disposed of.

Mishri Lal Son of Shri Jeevan Lal Vs Board of Revenue… — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JP:21967]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4559/2012

¶4

Mishri Lal son of Shri Jeevan Lal (since deceased represented by;

¶5

1/1 Sh Dinesh Chand S/o Late Sh. Mishri Lal, (Since Deceased Represented By)

¶6

1/1/1 Smt. Maya Devi W/o Late Sh. Dinesh Chand Sharma, R/o Mandrail, Tehsil Mandrail, District Karauli.

¶7

1/1/2 Sh. Satyendra Sharma S/o Late Sh. Dinesh Chand, R/o Mandrail, Tehsil Mandrail, District Karauli.

¶8

1/1/3 Sh. Sunil Sharma S/o Late Sh. Dinesh Chand Sharma, R/o Mandrail, Tehsil Mandrail, District Karauli.

¶9

½ Raghuveer Sharan Sharma S/o Late Shri Mishri Lal, R/o Mandrail, Tehsil Mandrail, District Karauli.

¶10

1/3 Rampati D/o Late Shri Mishri Lal, R/o Mandrail, Tehsil Mandrail, District Karauli.

¶11

¼ Radha Devi D/o Late Shri Mishri Lal, R/o Mandrail, Tehsil Mandrail, District Karauli.

¶12

1/5 Sunita Sharma D/o Late Shri Mishir Lal, R/o Mandrail, Tehsil Mandrail, District Karauli.

¶13

Bal Govind Son Of Shri Damodar, R/o Mandrail, Tehsil Mandrail, District Karauli.

¶14

Brij Mohan Son Of Shri Jeevan Lal, R/o Mandrail, Tehsil Mandrail, District Karauli.

¶15

Sita Wife Of Shri Jagmohan And Daughter Of Shri Damodar, R/o Mandrail, Tehsil Mandrail, District Karauli.

¶16

Gita Wife Of Shri Rameshwar Dayal And D/o Shri Damodar, R/o Mandrail, Tehsil Mandrail, District Karauli.

¶17

Bhagwati W/o Shri Shiv Charan And D/o Shri Damodar, R/o Mandrail, Tehsil Mandrail, District Karauli.

¶18

Omwati Wife Of Shri Devi Prasad And D/o Shri Damodar, R/o Mandrail, Tehsil Mandrail, District Karauli.

¶19

Ashok Kumar S/o Shri Ramji Lal, R/o Mandrail, Tehsil Mandrail, District Karauli.

¶20

----Petitioners

¶21

Versus

¶22

Board of Revenue for Rajasthan Ajmer through its Registrar

¶23

Revenue Appellate Authority, Sawai Madhopur.

(2 of 11)

[2023:RJ-JP:21967]

[CW-4559/2012]

Sub Divisional Officer, Mandrail, District Karauli.

¶28

Tehsildar, Mandrail, District Karauli.

¶29

---Proforma Respondents

¶30

1. Babulal, Since Expire Represented By-

¶31

5/1 Smt. Anita D/o Late Shri Shiv Charan W/o Sh. Mahesh Sharma, R/o 1602, Falcon Tower P.g. Road, Koli Samaj Hall Near Goregon Sports Club, Offlink Road, Malad (West) Mumbai.

¶32

5/2 Yogesh Sharma S/o Late Shri Babu Lal Sharma, Aged About 52 Years, R/o A-202, Nehru Nagar, Jaipur.

¶33

5/3 Smt. Neelima Sharma D/o Late Shri Babu Lal Sharma W/o Shri Hari Babu Sharma, Aged About 49 Years, R/o Plot No. 67, Sita Ram Colony, Shyopur Road, Pratap Nagar, Jaipur.

¶34

5/4 Rajesh Sharma S/o Late Shri Babu Lal Sharma, Aged About 45 Years, R/o 202, Nehru Nagar, Jaipur.

¶35

1. Hari Mohan Son Of Shri Ayodhya Prasad Singh, R/o Ghantaghar Ke Pass Wali Gali, Kota.

¶36

1. Vishnu Son Of Shri Ayodhya Prasad Singh, R/o Plot No. 80, Krishna Marg, Panipach, Jaipur.

¶37

1. Ishwar Prasad Son Of Shri Ayodhya Prasad Singh, R/o Plot No. 5, Ambabari, Jhotwara, Jaipur.

¶38

1. Rakesh Son of Shr. Ayodhya Prasad Singh, R/o Plot No. 80, Krishna Marg, Panipach, Jaipur.

¶39

1. Vidhya Devi Wife Of Shri Shivji Prasad, Since Deceased Represented By-

¶40

10/1 Balkrishan S/o Late Shri Shiv Charan, Aged About 58 Years, R/o 164, Karamchari Colony, College Road, Gangapur City, District Sawaimadhopur.

¶41

10/2 Anil Sharma S/o Late Shri Shiv Charan, Aged About 54 Years, R/o Teenpad Karauli.

¶42

10/3 Arun Sharma S/o Late Shri Shiv Charan, Aged About 51 Years, C/o Guru Cable Bhudara Bazar, Karauli.

¶43

10/4 Smt. Chandra Kanta D/o Late Shri Shiv Charan W/o Sh. Virendra Kumar Sharma, Aged About 62 Years, C/o Bal Bharti School, Keshavpura, Karauli.

¶44

1. Chandrakala Devi Wife Of Shri Mahendra Kumar And D/o Shri Ayodhya Prasad Singh, Since Deceased Represented By-

¶45

11/1 Mukesh Babu Shukla S/o Shri Mahendra Sharma (Shukla), R/o 35 New Akashvani Colony, Kota (Raj.)

¶46

11/2 Mahesh Babu Shukla S/o Shri Mahendra Sharma (Shukla), R/o 20 A Netaji Ki Chakki, Maheshpuri Nivaru Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur

(3 of 11)

[2023:RJ-JP:21967]

[CW-4559/2012]

Jaipur.

¶51

11/3 Nabih Babu Shukla S/o Shri Mahendra Sharma (Shukla), R/o Mishoro Ka Ndada, 352 Chatikna Karauli (Raj.)

¶52

11/4 Manju Lata Sharma W/o Praveen Kumar Sharma, R/o 43/c Gali No. 4, Subhash Colony, Kota (Raj.)

¶53

1. Kamlesh Kumari Wife Of Shri K.k. Sharma And S/o Shri Ayodhya Prasad Singh, R/o Railway Colony, Kota.

¶54

1. Ram Dayal Son Of Shri Ram Narain, R/o Barpada, Karauli. 14. Ramesh Chand Sharma @ Ramesh Lal Sharma, (Since Deceased Represented By-

¶55

14/1 Smt. Shankar Bai W/o Ramesh Chand Sharma, Aged About 60 Years, Resident Of Chhoreda Road Mandrail The. Mandrail District Karauli (Raj.)

¶56

14/2 Hemlata D/o Ramesh Chand Sharma, Aged About 37 Years, Resident Of Chhoreda Road Mandrail The. Mandrail District Karauli (Raj.)

¶57

14/3 Bhuvaneshwar Sharma S/o Ramesh Chand Sharma, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of Chhoreda Road Mandrail The. Mandrail District Karauli (Raj.)

¶58

14/4 Ved Prakash Sharma S/o Ramesh Chand Sharma, Resident Of Chhoreda Road Mandrail The. Mandrail District Karauli (Raj.)

¶59

14/5 Chhail Behari Sharma S/o Ramesh Chand Sharma, Aged About 22 Years, Resident Of Chhoreda Road Mandrail The. Mandrail District Karauli (Raj.)

¶60

14/6 Kapil Sharma S/o Ramesh Chand Sharma, Resident Of Chhoreda Road Mandrail The. Mandrail District Karauli (Raj.)

¶61

14/7 Golo Bai D/o Ramesh Chand Sharma, Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of Chhoreda Road Mandrail The. Mandrail District Karauli (Raj.)

¶62

14/8 Reman Sharma D/o Ramesh Chand Sharma, Aged About 23 Years, Resident Of Chhoreda Road Mandrail The. Mandrail District Karauli (Raj.)

¶63

Angur Bai Widow Of Shri Bal Krishan, R/o Hathighata, Kara uli.

¶64

Hariom Son Of Shri Bal Krishan, R/o Uppadhyapada, Mandrail, Karauli.

¶65

Janardan Son Of Shri Bal Krishan, R/o Uppadhyapada, Mandrail, Karauli.

¶66

Laxmi Bai Widow Of Shri Ramji Lal, R/o Uppadhyaypada, Mandrail, Karauli.

(4 of 11)

[2023:RJ-JP:21967]

[CW-4559/2012]

Prem D/o Shri Ramji Lal And Wife Of Shri Ramesh Chand Sharma, R/o Galale, Tehsil Savalgarh (Raj.)

¶71

Bhagwati D/o Shri Ramji Lal And Wife Of Shri Uma Shankar, R/o Jamudi Dukawali, Tehsil Virpur (Mp)

¶72

Vedvati D/o Ramji Lal And W/o Hari Shankar, R/o Masalpur, Karauli.

¶73

----Respondent

¶74

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R. K. Mathur, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Raghvendra Singh Khichi

¶75

For Respondent(s) : Mr. J. P. Goyal, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Jyoti Swami Mr. S. K. Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sarthak Saxena Mr. Akshay Sharma, AGC

¶76

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

¶77

Order

¶78

Reserved on 31/07/2023

¶79

Pronoucned on 18/09/2023

¶80

The instant writ petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the impugned order dated 21.12.2011 passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer in Appeal No. 722/2006/Karauli whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioners against the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority dated 02.12.2005 was dismissed.

¶81

The ineluctable and concise factual narrative of the instant petition, necessary for adjudicating upon the lis in question, is noted herein-under:

¶82

2/1 That the land under dispute, bearing old Khasra Nos. 590, 590-Min and 590, constituted the religious muafi land of one Sh.

[2023:RJ-JP:21967]

[CW-4559/2012]

(5 of 11)

Murari Lal s/o Sh. Laxmi Narain, as per the Jamabandi of Samwat Year 2010-2013.

¶87

2/2 That Sh. Jeevan Lal s/o Sh. Madan Brahmin was the subtenant of the said land under dispute.

¶88

2/3 That the old Khasra Nos. 590, 590-Min and 591 were converted into new Khasra Nos. 733, 734 and 735 in the last settlement, as per the Jamabandi of Samwat Year 2015. 2/4 Correspondingly, distinct land admeasuring 68 Bighas 19 Biswas was also in the Khatedari of Sh. Jeevan Lal. 2/5 That on 22.12.1959, on the basis of the alleged statement of Sh. Jeevan Lal, the land under dispute, was recorded jointly in the name of Sh. Jeevan Lal s/o Sh. Madan Lal along with the brothers of Madan Lal i.e. Sh. Ram Ratan, Sh. Panna Lal and Sh. Ram Narain, who happened to be the sons of one Sh. Shiv Lal. 2/6 That on 24.06.1991, Sh. Ayodhya Prasad s/o Sh. Ram Narain filed a suit for division of the complete holding under Section 53 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act of 1955, including therein the land under dispute, in relation to which, he claimed a 1/4^th share.

¶89

2/7 That on 26.12.1992, the petitioners filed their written statement in the said suit and denied the averments made therein, especially on the ground that the land under dispute was not ancestral/joint property. Rather, it was the absolute khatedari land of Sh. Jeevan Lal. In this regard, the petitioners had contended before the authorities below that Sh. Jeevan Lal, being the sub-tenant of Sh. Murari Lal in relation to the muafi land, became its absolute khatedar under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagir Act, 1952 (for brevity, Act of 1952).

[2023:RJ-JP:21967]

[CW-4559/2012]

(6 of 11)

2/8 That on 12.03.2004, the learned trial decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff-defendant Sh. Ayodhya Prasad.

¶94

2/9 That being aggrieved, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Sawai Madhopur. However, vide order dated 02.12.2005, the appeal came to be dismissed.

¶95

2/10 That thereafter, the petitioners further appealed the order dated 02.12.2005 before the learned Board of Revenue. However, the said appeal was also dismissed vide impugned order dated 21.12.2011.

¶96

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the orders passed by the authorities below dated 12.03.2004, 02.12.2005 and 21.12.2011 are against the settled factual position of the case at hand and therefore, the same deserve to be quashed and set aside. In order to substantiate upon the said submission, it was argued that the authorities below passed the impugned orders, based solely on the alleged statement of Sh. Jeevan Lal dated 22.12.1959, in the absence of any documentary evidence produced by the plaintiff-defendants in connection therewith. Learned counsel further placed reliance upon the Jamabandi (marked as ‘Annexure-1’) and averred that Khasra Nos. 733, 734 and 735 admeasuring 12 Bighas 1 Biswa was the religious muafi land of Sh. Murari Lal, of which Sh. Jeevan Lal was a sub-tenant. Therefore, by virtue of Section 9 of the Act of 1952, he became the absolute khatedar of the said land.

¶97

In light of the submissions made herein-above, learned counsel for the petitioners argued that as a consequent result of Sh. Jeevan Lal becoming the absolute khatedar of the said land on

[2023:RJ-JP:21967]

[CW-4559/2012]

(7 of 11)

account of him being the sub-tenant therein, by no stretch of any imagination, could the said land be considered as the ancestral land of Sh. Shiv Lal or his sons. Therefore, the impugned orders insofar as they took within the ambit of division the land under dispute, of which the absolute khatedar was Sh. Jeevan Lal, need to be quashed and set aside. In support of the contentions raised herein-above, reliance was placed upon Idan vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr: 2001 (1) RRT 244 , Geega Ram and Anr. vs. The Board of Revenue and Ors.: 2008 (1) RRT 151 and Nisar Mohd. vs. The State of Rajasthan and Ors: 2009 (2) RRT 1072 .

¶102

Per contra , learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the instant petition deserves to be dismissed, solely on the ground that under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Court must only limit its findings in respect of whether or not any palpable error of law has crept in the orders impugned. In this regard, it was submitted that the three authorities below, vide orders dated 12.03.2004, 02.12.2005 and 21.12.2011 have rendered concurrent findings. Moreover, the disputed questions of fact have also been put to rest by the authorities below. Even otherwise, no legal question(s) arise for the consideration of this Court as the learned authorities below have passed the orders impugned after having taken into consideration the material evidence available on record.

¶103

In order to substantiate upon the submissions made above, learned counsel argued that the disputed land bearing Khasra Nos. 733, 734 and 735 admeasuring 12 Bighas 1 Biswa along with other land admeasuring 68 Bighas 19 Biswa was in the joint

[2023:RJ-JP:21967]

[CW-4559/2012]

(8 of 11)

cultivation and possession of the father of the petitioners i.e. Sh. Jeevan Lal along with the father of the respondents and their brothers. However, during the settlement held in the Year 2015, inadvertently, the disputed land was recorded in the sub-tenancy of Sh. Jeevan Lal for a short duration of time whereas, the remaining 68 Bighas 19 Biswas remained in his tenancy. Hence, the factum of Sh. Jeevan Lal becoming the absolute khatedar of the land under dispute is wholly erroneous, especially on account of the joint cultivatory possession of the said land by the fathers of the petitioners as well as the respondents along with their brothers. Furthermore, learned counsel also placed reliance upon Exhibit-R/1, which also formed part of the record before the three courts below. As per the said document, in the Year 1991, the revenue records were updated and a combined jamabandi document reflected Khasra Nos. 733, 734 and 735 to be a combined and/or joint property of the petitioners as well as the respondents. In support of his submissions, learned counsel placed reliance upon the dictum of this Court as enunciated in Nath Ram and Ors. vs. Bhika and Ors.: WLC (UC) 1979 468 and S.B. CWP No. 9798/2016 titled as Amar Chand vs. Jitendra and Ors.

¶108

Heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the sides, scanned the record of the present petition and perused the judgments cited at Bar.

¶109

It is trite law that there is limited scope of interference with a well-reasoned order while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is a well settled principle of law that in the guise of exercising jurisdiction under Article 227

[2023:RJ-JP:21967]

[CW-4559/2012]

(9 of 11)

of the Constitution of India, the High Court cannot convert itself into a court of appeal. It is equally well settled, that the supervisory jurisdiction extends to keeping the subordinate tribunals/courts within the limits of their authority and seeing that they obey the law. It has been held that though the powers under Article 227 are wide, they must be exercised sparingly and only to keep the subordinate courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and not to correct mere erros. Reliance in this respect can be placed on the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court as enunciated in Mohd. Inam vs. Sanjay Kumar Singhal and Ors.: (2020) 7 SCC 327 .

¶114

Upon a considered perusal of the impugned orders, it is analyzed that the learned courts below have duly taken note of the following stipulations/facts, necessary for adjudicating upon the lis in question, which are re-iterated herein-under:

¶115

9/1 That the petitioners as well as the respondents are close relatives of one another, being the descendants of Sh. Shiv Narain, who had four sons namely Madan Lal, Ram Ratan, Panna Lal and Ram Narain. 9/2 That of the four brothers, Sh. Madan Lal was survived by one Sh. Jeevan Lal; Sh. Ram Ratan was survived by two daughters; Sh. Panna Lal died issueless and Sh. Ram Narain was survived by two sons. The contesting parties to the lis in question are the descendants of Sh. Jeevan Lal i.e. petitioners and the descendants of Sh. Ram Narain i.e. respondents.

¶116

9/3 That as per the Jamabandi for the Samwat Year 2014-2015, Khasra Nos. 733, 734 and 735 stood jointly in the common name of the petitioners as well as the respondents. By placing reliance

[2023:RJ-JP:21967]

[CW-4559/2012]

(10 of 11)

upon Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, it was also noted that whenever any person produces jamabandi in his name, there is a presumption that he is the recorded khatedar of that land. The burden lies on the person who challenges the jamabandi to prove that there was an error in the jamabandi or that the entries were obtained by frivolous means or by fraud.

¶121

9/4 That as per Annexure-6 i.e. the statement made by Sh. Jeevan Lal dated 22.12.1959, it is admitted that the property in question belongs to both himself as well as his uncles (sons of Shiv Lal i.e. Ram Ratan and Ram Narain), in shares of 1/3 and 2/3 respectively. 9/5 That the land under dispute was ancestral land, in the collective and joint cultivatory possession of the petitioners as well as the respondents.

¶122

In the opinion of this Court, the learned Board of Revenue has passed a well-reasoned speaking order and after consideration of material aspects, arrived at a logical conclusion. This Court is in complete agreement with the reasoning adopted by the learned Board of Revenue. There is no violation of principles of natural justice and no palpable error has crept in the order impugned, thereby precluding intefrence under Article 227 of the of the Constitution of India.

¶123

In light of the reasoning adopted by the learned Board of Revenue, especially the material stipulations as noted above, and in light of the observations made herein-above, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the findings rendered by the learned Board of Revenue.

(11 of 11)

[2023:RJ-JP:21967]

[CW-4559/2012]

Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶128

(SAMEER JAIN),J

¶129

Pooja /130

Mishri Lal Son of Shri Jeevan Lal v. Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mishri Lal Son of Shri Jeevan Lal v. Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer

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

Manmohan Vs Ram Prasad and Ors.

Mangat Singh Vs Chakar Singh Andanr

Badami Devi Meena and Ors. Vs B O R Ajmer and Ors.

Pinky Singh Vs M D S University Anr.

Santosh Kumar S/O Shri Nemichand Sharma, Vs Smt. Safedi W/O Nemichand

Sayeed Shah S/O Late Shri Rasul Shah Vs Intejamiya Committee Dargah