Disposed

Narsingh v. the State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC6 May 2024CW/1609/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought mutation of khatedari rights over land at Village Mandor in pursuance of decrees upheld up to the Supreme Court. The State agreed to reconsider; the court quashed the Tehsildar's rejection order and directed reconsideration within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 07.08.2023 quashed and set aside; respondents directed to reconsider the matter per judgments in petitioner's favour within four weeks.

Narsingh Vs the State of Rajasthan — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:19663]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1609/2024

¶4

Narsingh S/o Suvta Mali, Aged About 74 Years, R/o Village Mandor, Tehsil Jodhpur

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶8

District Collector, Jodhpur.

¶9

Tehsildar, Tehsil Jodhpur District Jodhpur.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Moti Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.D. Bhadu, Dy.G.C.

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

¶13

Order

¶14

06/05/2024

¶15

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶16

The present writ petition has been filed with the following

¶17

prayers:

¶18

“a. That by an appropriate writ, order and direction, dated 07.08.2023 (Annex.11) passed by the Tehsildar Jodhpur may be quashed and set aside.

¶19

b. may kindly be issued and the District Collector and Tehsildar Jodhpur may kindly be directed to enter the mutation in the name of petitioner and other decree holder in the revenue record of Khasra no.129 Rabka 20 Bigha of Village Mandor in pursuance of the judgment and decree dated 18.06.1997 passed by the RAA Jodhpur in appeal no.18/97 and same was affirmed by this Hon’ble Court vide judgment dated 23.01.2012 (Annex.3) in writ petition no. 12702/2011 titled as Om Singh vs. State of Rajasthan.

¶20

c. That by an appropriate writ, order and direction may kindly be issued and the District Collector and Tehsildar Jodhpur may kindly be directed that they are duty bound to complied with the judgment and decree passed by competent court of law as well as the order dated 05.05.2022 (Annex.5) passed by the Hon’ble

(2 of 4)

[2024:RJ-JD:19663]

[CW-1609/2024]

Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal no. 60316032/2014 titled as Nar Singh vs State of Rajasthan. d. That by an appropriate writ, order and direction my kindly be issued and the District collector and Tehsildar Jodhpur may kindly be punished by an appropriate fine or the departmental inquiry for disobeying/non-compliance of the order and judgment passed by this Hon’ble Court.”

¶25

Briefly noted the facts of the present case are that the petitioner preferred a suit for the declaration of khatedari rights for the land in question which was in the cultivatory possession of the petitioner for a long period of time. The suit was dismissed on 17.03.1997. Subsequently, against the order dated 17.03.1997, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority which was allowed vide order dated 18.06.1997. The State preferred a second appeal against the order dated 18.06.1997 before the Board of Revenue and the same was dismissed vide order dated 18.04.2011. Further, the order of the Revenue Board was challenged by way of filing a writ petition before this Court and the same was also disposed of vide order dated 23.01.2012. However, against the order dated 23.01.2012 passed by the Single Bench, an appeal was preferred by the State before the Division Bench of this Court which was allowed vide order dated 28.03.2012. Subsequently, against the order dated 28.03.2012 passed by the Division Bench in favour of the State, a Special Leave Petition was preferred by the petitioner before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 05.05.2022 allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner and set-aside the order dated 28.03.2012 passed by the Division Bench. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a writ petition before this Court and the same was decided by the Co-ordinate Bench

[2024:RJ-JD:19663]

[CW-1609/2024]

(3 of 4)

vide order dated 11.05.2023, whereby, a direction was given to the respondents to decide the representation filed by the petitioner within a period of three months, however, the representation preferred by the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 07.08.2023. Thus, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing the present writ petition.

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the issue has been decided in favour of the petitioner by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and, therefore, the Revenue authorities are under an obligation to register the name of the petitioner by making appropriate entry in his favour in the revenue records. He also submits that the order passed on 07.08.2023 by the Revenue authorities is clearly in violation of the judgments passed and upheld in favour of the petitioner right up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court and, therefore, non-compliance of the same may be viewed very seriously. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the land is still in possession of the petitioner and mutation entries made in favour of Urban Improvement Trust (UIT) may be quashed and set aside and the land may be entered in the name of the petitioner in the revenue records. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition may be allowed and the order dated 07.08.2023 may be quashed and set-aside.

¶31

Learned counsel for the State Government is not in a position to dispute the factual aspect of the matter and the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, however, he submits that the respondents will reconsider the matter in light of the judgments rendered in favour of the petitioner and will pass appropriate order in the case.

[2024:RJ-JD:19663]

[CW-1609/2024]

(4 of 4)

Considering the submissions made before this Court, the order dated 07.08.2023 is quashed and set-aside and the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to reconsider the matter of the petitioner in light of the judgments rendered in his favour and pass an appropriate order within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, strictly in accordance with law.

¶36

Stay application as well as other pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶37

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J

¶38

9-Arun P/-

Narsingh v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narsingh v. the State of Rajasthan

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

Union of India Vs Madan Lal Koli

Rajesh Mehta Vs State of Rajasthan

Bheema Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Sandeep @ Sandy Vs State of Rajasthan

Laxmilal Vs Urban Improvement Trust

Gul Roshan Sansthan Goshala Vs the State of Rajasthan