Allowed

Tehsildar through Mela Adhikari v. Dinesh Chand S/O Motilal

Rajasthan HC18 Sept 2024CW/25953/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court quashed the Board of Revenue's order dismissing the State's appeal and allowing the private appellant's appeal in a land dispute. The Court held that the order was passed without impleading the State, providing a hearing, considering prior judgments, or conducting a spot inspection. The matter was remanded to the First Appellate Authority for a fresh decision.

What did the court decide?

Orders of the Board of Revenue and appellate authority set aside; matter remanded to the First Appellate Authority to decide afresh after hearing affected parties.

Tehsildar through Mela Adhikari Vs Dinesh Chand S/O… — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:39386]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 25719/2018

¶4

State Of Rajasthan, (Shri Jaswant Pradarshi And Animal Husbandry Department Bharatpur) Through Joint Director / Mela Adhikari, Animal Husbandry Department Bharatpur

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Dinesh Chand S/o Motilal, R/o Anah Gate, Bazaria, District Bharatpur

¶8

Om Prakash S/o Motilal, R/o Anah Gate, Bazaria, District Bharatpur

¶9

Anil Kumar S/o Motilal, R/o Anah Gate, Bazaria, District Bharatpur

¶10

Smt. Rekha W/o Lokesh Kumar, R/o Anah Gate, Bazaria, District Bharatpur

¶11

Rajat S/o Lokesh Kumar Minor Through His mother Rekha, R/o Anah Gate, Bazaria, District Bharatpur

¶12

Hardai W/o Mahesh Chand, R/o Anah Gate, Bazaria, District Bharatpur

¶13

State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar Bharatpur

¶14

----Respondents

¶15

Connected With

¶16

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 25953/2018

¶17

Tehsildar Through Mela Adhikari, Bharatpur

¶18

----Petitioner

¶19

Versus

¶20

Dinesh Chand S/o Motilal, R/o Anah Gate, Bazaria, District Bharatpur.

¶21

Om Prakash S/o Motilal, R/o Anah Gate, Bazaria, District Bharatpur.

¶22

Anil Kumar S/o Motilal, R/o Anah Gate, Bazaria, District Bharatpur.

¶23

Rekha W/o Lokesh Kumar, R/o Anah Gate, Bazaria, District Bharatpur.

¶24

Rajat S/o Lokesh Kumar, Minor Through His mother Rekha, R/o Anah Gate, Bazaria, District Bharatpur.

(2 of 5)

[2024:RJ-JP:39386]

[CW-25719/2018]

Hardai W/o Mahesh Chand, R/o Anah Gate, Bazaria, District Bharatpur.

¶29

State Of Rajasthan Through Tehsildar, Bharatpur.

¶30

State Of Rajasthan Through District Collector, Bharatpur.

¶31

----Respondents

¶32

For Petitioner(s) : Ms.Mahi Yadav, AAG with Ms. Archana, Adv. & Mr.Rahul Kumar, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr.Ram Prasad Sharma, Adv. & Mr.K.S. Rajawat, Adv. for Mr.Prahlad Sharma, Adv.

¶33

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN Order

¶34

18/09/2024

¶35

These writ petitions are being decided by common order as the facts and issue involved are same. For the sake of convenience, the facts are being taken from S.B. CWP No.25719/2018.

¶36

These petitions are filed aggrieved of order dated 22.03.2018 passed by the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer (for short 'the Board') dismissing the appeal No.7616/2015 preferred by the State and allowing the appeal no.3937/2015 preferred by the respondents-Dinesh Chand and Om Prakash.

¶37

The brief facts are that Dinesh Chand and Om Prakash filed a suit pleading that land in question was possessed by their ancestors. Initially, Nandkumar@Gurumukhdas, who adopted Motilal was cultivating the land and after his death the land was in possession of Motilal. The plaintiff/defendants No.1 to 3 were in possession of the land after the death of Motilal, albeit, in the revenue records entries in the name of Nandkumar@ Gurumukhdas was continuing as gair khatedar. Suit for partition and permanent injunction was decreed on 09.02.2015. The

[2024:RJ-JP:39386]

[CW-25719/2018]

(3 of 5)

plaintiffs filed an appeal with prayer that measurement of the land in question be carried out, new khasra be assigned and correct Milan Kshetraphal be made. The Appellate Authority allowed the appeal. The second appeal No.3937/2015 was filed by the plaintiffs while State filed Second Appeal No.7616/2015 through Mela Adhikari, Animal Husbandry Department. The Board of Revenue by common order dated 22.3.2018 accepted the appeal of the plaintiffs and dismissed the appeal of the State. Hence, the present petition.

¶42

Counsel for the petitioner submits that land in question was entered in the name of Jashwant Pradarshani and Animal Husbandry Department, Bharatpur (for short ‘husbandry department), in revenue record and the appellate authority directed to change the revenue entries by deleting name of husbandry department from the khasra numbers and restricting the entry to khasra Nos.3228 to 3230 rakba 0.87 hectare. The order was passed without impleading the husbandry department as party or giving opportunity of hearing. The contention is that the effect of dismissal of civil suit No.382/2002 and appeal No.166/2003 was not considered. The argument is that after death of Gurmukhdas the land of khasra No.956 vested in State and the adoption of Motilal by Gurumukhdas was not proved.

¶43

As per contra, the appellate authority had directed that the revenue entries be made in favour of husbandry department in khasra No.3228 to 3230. The husbandry department has no right in khasra No.3231 to 3240 for which mutation was ordered to be made in favour of the plaintiffs. The contention is that petitioner is not affected by revenue entries of Khasra No.3231 to 3240.

[2024:RJ-JP:39386]

[CW-25719/2018]

(4 of 5)

Before proceeding further, it would be relevant to quote, the translation of operative part of order of appeal dated 26.06.2015:-

¶48

“Therefore, it is ordered that as per above the appellant is declared khatedar of the total land 10 raqba 0.85 hectare of the correct form of new khasra number 3231/0.12 and 3232/0.01 and 3233/0.12 and 3234/0.04 and 3235/0.08 and 3239/0.08 and 3240/0.16 and 3236/0.06 and 3237/0.10 and 3238/0.08 made from the old khasra number 956 raqba 5 beegha 7 biswa. After cancelling the present entry of Jaswant Pradarshani on these khasra numbers, khasra number 3228, 3229, 3230 rakba 0.87 hectare should be registered in the name of Jaswant Pradarshani. On 3.6.2015, a compromise deed was presented by the appellant, which was certified. According to which, appellant 1. Omprakash 15 Are appellant 2. Dinesh Chand 41 Are respondent 1. Anil kumar 14 Are respondent 2. with 4 jointly of 15 Are will be khatedar tenants and it is ordered to register the khatedars accordingly in the revenue record.”

¶49

The appellate authority noted the fact that revenue entry was in the name of husbandry department and the order was passed for deleting name of husbandry department from the revenue record viz-a-viz khasra No.3231/0.12, 3232/0.01, 3233/0.12, 3234/0.04, 3235/0.08, 3239/0.08, 3240/0.16, 3236/0.06, 3237/0.10, 3238/0.08 total measuring land 10 Rakba 0.85 Hectare and restricted the entry qua husbandry department in khasra No.3228 to 3230. The directions were issued at back of husbandry department. The appellate authority passed the order solely on the basis of report submitted by the Tehsildar without

(5 of 5)

[2024:RJ-JP:39386]

[CW-25719/2018]

there being spot inspection or the objection being invited on the report submitted by the Tehsildar.

¶54

The appellate authority and Board had taken into consideration that there was change in Khasra Numbers. The Board of Revenue on the basis that the land in question was in possession of respondent, upheld the order of the appellate authority. Board assumed that animal fair by husbandry department was being held in khasra Nos.3228 to 3230 as pond situated there was filled with water.

¶55

Another aspect is that the board allowed the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC taking on record the judgment and decree passed in civil suit No.382/2002 and order in appeal but effect of these was not considered.

¶56

The Board noted contentions of the petitioner that the appellate authority passed an adverse order at the back of the petitioner but never dealt with it.

¶57

In view of the above and considering the fact that order against the petitioner was passed without providing opportunity of hearing or impleading as party, the orders of the Board and appellate authority are set aside. The matter is remanded to the First Appellate Authority to decide the appeal afresh in accordance with law, after providing opportunity of hearing to the affected parties.

¶58

The writ petitions are allowed.

¶59

Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

¶60

(AVNEESH JHINGAN),J

¶61

Brijesh/39-40 Whether Reportable:

¶62

Yes

Tehsildar through Mela Adhikari v. Dinesh Chand S/O Motilal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tehsildar through Mela Adhikari v. Dinesh Chand S/O Motilal

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

Mustak S/O. Aas Mohammad Vs the State of Rajasthan

Vedprakash, S/O. Shaymlal Vs the State of Rajasthan

Shri Krishna Paramedical College Vs State of Rajasthan

India Image Vs State of Raj and Ors.

D.A.V. College Managing Committee (C.W.C.) Vs State of Rajasthan, through Secretary

Smt Dhapu and Ors. Vs Board of Revenue Ajmer and Ors.