Allowed

Azizur Rehman (Since Deceased) v. the Board of Revenue

Rajasthan HC6 Sept 2024CW/2180/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the Board of Revenue's order accepting a review petition and remanding the matter. The Court held that merely rehearing an appeal and recording consistent findings exceeded the Board's jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.

What did the court decide?

The acceptance of the review petition and the order remanding the matter back to Additional Collector for de novo inquiry were quashed.

Azizur Rehman (Since Deceased) Vs the Board of Revenue — Land Acquisition | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:37750]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2180/2012

¶4

Hafizur Rehman S/o Azizur Rehman, Aged About 53 Years, Resident Of Village Nahargarh Tehsil Kishanganj, District Baran Presently Resident Of 1-D-5, Chhatarpura Talab (Vigyan Nagar), Kota (Rajasthan)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer

¶8

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

¶9

The State Government Through The Tehsildar, Kishanganj, District Baran.

¶10

Narain Koli Son of Shri Nathulal, Resident of Village Nahargarh, Tehsil Kishanganj, District Baran.

¶11

Shiv Raj Gusai Son Of Shri Kedar Lal, Resident Of Village Nahargarh, Tehsil Kishanganj, District Baran.

¶12

Lalit Son of Laxman Lal, Resident Of Village Nahargarh, Tehsil Kishanganj, District Baran.

¶13

----Respondents

¶14

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Sanjay Mehrishi with Mr.Rakesh Saini For Respondent(s) : Mr.Neeraj Batra, GC with Mr.Ravinder Pal Singh & Mr.Tek Chand Sharma Mr.Amit Jindal

¶15

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN

¶16

Order

¶17

06/09/2024

¶18

This petition is filed aggrieved of order dated 16.01.2012 passed by the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer (for short ‘the

[2024:RJ-JP:37750]

[CW-2180/2012]

(2 of 5)

Board’) accepting the review petition of the respondent Nos.4 to 6 (hereinafter referred to as ‘respondents’).

¶23

The brief facts are that the petitioner filed an application on 29.05.1968 before the Land Allotment Committee, Kishanganj for allottment of fifteen Bighas of land in Khasra No.459 situated in Village Nahargarh, Tehsil Kishanganj. Vide order dated 29.05.1968, ten Bighas of land was allotted to the petitioner. Ten Bighas of land in Khasra No.459 of Village Nahargarh, Tehsil Kishanganj was also allotted to one Abdul Salim Khan. The physical possession of both the lands was handed over and the Khatedari rights were conferred to the petitioner as well as Abdul Salim Khan in the year 1980. The legal heirs of Abdul Salim Khan through registered sale deed dated 11.01.1994 sold the allotted ten Bighas of land to the petitioner. On 19.11.2004, the respondents filed a suit in the Court of Sub-Divisional Officer, Kishanganj challenging the allotment of land to the petitioner. The suit was dismissed on 31.12.2009. During pendency of the suit, respondents filed an application under Rule 14(4) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Land for Agricultural Purposes) Rules, 1970 (for short ‘the Rules’) for cancellation of allotment in favour of the petitioner and Abdul Saleem Khan. It was pleaded that Abdul Saleem Khan was non-existent and the petitioner had himself got the land allotted, which was subsequently transferred by a registered sale deed. The application was dismissed on 28.02.2007.

¶24

The Revenue Appellate Authority and the Board dismissed the First and Second Appeals of the respondents on 19.01.2008 and 12.03.2008 respectively. The review filed by the respondents

[2024:RJ-JP:37750]

[CW-2180/2012]

(3 of 5)

was accepted by the Board on 16.01.2012. The matter was remitted to the Additional Collector, to be decided as per the specific directions given. Hence, the present petition.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was allotted the land as his land had come under the Pond of the Village. The contention is that allotment of land was challenged after more than thirty five years. It is argued that while hearing the review petition, the Board has reheard the appeal and the order is not sustainable.

¶30

Per contra there were allegations of fraud. The petitioner was a Government Servant and was not entitled to allotment of the land. The contention is that there was no person by the name of Abdul Saleem Khan and it was a veil created by the petitioner for getting another ten Bighas of land. The argument is that the Board has only remanded the matter.

¶31

Section 86 of the Land Revenue Act, 1956 (for short ‘the Act’) provides the power of review. As per Section 86(3) of the Act, the application for review shall lie on any of the grounds mentioned in Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. The grounds available are where an important matter or affair could not be produced, being not within the knowledge of the party at the time of passing of the decree or a mistake apparent on the face of the record or any other sufficient reason.

¶32

The Supreme Court in the case of Parsion Devi and Ors. Vs. Sumitri Devi and Ors. reported in (1997) 8 SCC 715 has held:-

¶33

“Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An

(4 of 5)

[2024:RJ-JP:37750]

[CW-2180/2012]

error which is not self evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the Court to exercise its power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.

¶38

In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be ‘reheard and corrected’. A review petition, it must be remembered has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be ‘an appeal in disguise’.

¶39

The respondents challenged the allotments of land to the petitioner and Abdul Saleem Khan by filing a single application. The allegations against the petitioner was of withholding the fact of being a Government Servant. The allotment of the land to Abdul Saleem Khan was challenged stating that he is non existent and it was the petitioner who got the land allotted and subsequently got it transferred in his name by the registered sale deed.

¶40

The respondents failed in all the three forums, firstly for non impleadment of necessary parties i.e. Abdul Saleem Khan or his LR’s; secondly for failure to prove that the petitioner was a Government Teacher; thirdly a factual finding was recorded that allotment of the land was made to the petitioner as his land had come under the Pond of the Village; and lastly that the allotment was challenged after a period of more than thirty five years. These aspects were taken into consideration by the Board while deciding the second appeal.

¶41

The Board while entertaining the review, virtually reheard the appeal and had gone into the depths of the arguments raised

[2024:RJ-JP:37750]

[CW-2180/2012]

(5 of 5)

and dealt with by all the three forums, by recording consistent findings.

¶46

Another angle that needs to be considered is that the respondents at the first instance had filed a suit for declaration, challenging the allotment of land to the petitioner. During pendency of the suit, in an endeavor to travel in two boats simultaneously, the proceedings under Rule 14(4) of the Rules were resorted to. It is an undisputed fact that the suit filed by the respondents was dismissed.

¶47

The acceptance of review and remanding the matter back with specific directions has resulted into rehearing of the matter and ordering denovo enquiry. The Board has exceeded jurisdiction in exercising the power of review.

¶48

The impugned order is quashed. The writ petition is allowed. 15. It is clarified that the petition is being accepted on the ground that the matter was not within the ambit of the review provisions.

¶49

(AVNEESH JHINGAN),J

¶50

Monika/Chandan/23

¶51

Reportable : Yes

Azizur Rehman (Since Deceased) v. the Board of Revenue

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Azizur Rehman (Since Deceased) v. the Board of Revenue

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

Veer Bhan Singh Vs State Education Departmentors

Indian Red Crose Society Vs U O I and Ors.

Shivani Saini Vs State Home Departmentors

Jagdish S/O Late Nathuram Vs Kanhaiyalal S/O Late Shri Syolal Urf Syonarayan

Ramji Lal Sharma and Anr. Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Sanet Gram Seva Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Vs State of Rajasthan