Dismissed

Satpal v. the Chairman

Rajasthan HC28 May 2024CW/5359/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging revenue orders regarding land possession. The court upheld the concurrent findings of the SDO, RAA, and Board of Revenue that the land was acquired by Mandi Vikas Samiti and lawfully allotted to the respondent, and that the petitioners' suit was barred by limitation.

What the court decided

AI extract

Satpal Vs the Chairman — Landlord and Tenant | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:24647]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5359/2022

¶4

Satpal S/o Late Sh. Binja Ram, aged about 57 years, Resident of Village and Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh.

¶5

Rajendra S/o Late Sh. Binja Ram, aged about 58 years, Resident of Village and Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh.

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

The Chairman, Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation, Jaipur.

¶9

Smt. Chanda Devi D/o Late Sh. Binja Ram, Resident of Village and Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh.

¶10

Smt. Sampat Devi D/o Late Sh. Binja Ram, Resident of Village and Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh.

¶11

Smt. Lalita Devi D/o Late Sh. Binja Ram, Resident of Village and Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh.

¶12

State of Rajasthan through the Tehsildar, Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh.

¶13

----Respondents

¶14

For Petitioner(s)	: Ms.Pratishtha Dave,
	Ms. Geeta Shrimali

¶15

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI

¶16

Order

¶17

28/05/2024

¶18

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 26.04.2019 passed by Board of Revenue Ajmer (Annex.14), order dated 26.06.2003 passed by Revenue Appellate

(2 of 9)

[2024:RJ-JD:24647]

[CW-5359/2022]

Authority Hanumangarh (Annex.12) and order dated 20.09.2002 passed by SDO Hanumangarh (Annex.9).

¶23

Brief facts of the case are that the father of the petitioners and respondents No. 2 to 4 late Sh. Binjaram had Khatedari rights qua land ad-measuring 15 Bigha comprising Khasra No.793/733 from the year 1989 situated at Rohi, Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh, as evident from the Jamabandi of Samvat Year 2009-2012 (Annex.1). Furthermore, in the settlement operations of Samvat Year 2020, Khasra No.127 was re-numbered and 10 Bigha 4 Biswa was recorded in Gair Khatedari of Sh. Binjaram as evident from Jamabandi (Annex.2). Furthermore in the Jamabandi of year 2029 to 2038 (Annex.3) Sh. Binjaram continued to be recorded as a Gair Khatedar and thus aggrieved by the same the petitioners along with the respondents No.2 to 4 and with the mother Bhanwari Devi filed a suit No. 110/1989, which was decreed by the SDO Nohar vide Judgement dated 16.12.1991 (Annex.4) while holding that the land in question remained in Khatedari of Sh. Binjaram and on the basis of the above judgment 16.12.1991, mutation (Annex.5) was entered in Revenue records.

¶24

Meanwhile in the year 1981 Additional Collector Secretary Mandi Samiti allotted the land measuring 400 x 600 yard of Khasra No.129 in favour of respondent No.1/defendant for establishment of Milk Chilling Centre, however, in the absence of any proper demarcation, the Milk Chilling Dairy was established on the land of Khasra No.127 and part of Khasra No.126. The petitioners resisted the action of the respondent No.1 in

[2024:RJ-JD:24647]

[CW-5359/2022]

(3 of 9)

construction of the Chilling Center and a letter dated 03.03.1984 (Annex.6) was issued by the Tehsildar Nohar to the Project Officer, Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd, Hanumangarh stating therein that the allotment was made to Respondent No.1 RCDF and asked the Project Officer to remain present along with the record.

¶29

Moreover a revenue suit No.267/1993 dated 26.10.1983 (Annex.7) was filed by the petitioners before before SDO Nohar stating therein that the petitioners and respondents No.2 to 4 are Khatedars of the land of Khasra No.127 ad-measuring 10 Bigha 4 Biswa situated at Rohi Nohar wherein the respondent No.1 while encroaching the land proceeded with construction of Milk Chilling Centre illegally on the land in dispute.

¶30

Thereafter, written statements were filed on 1.08.1997 (Annex.8) stating therein it that the respondent/defendant was allotted the land on 22.06.1981 by Additional District Collector Secretary Mandi vikas Samiti Hanumangarh where Milk Processing Centre was constructed and further stated that the ancestors of the plaintiffs/petitioners had taken the land in exchange of the disputed land.

¶31

Meanwhile, a suit dated 21.07.1998 (Annex.10) was filed by Additional Collector cum secretary Mandi Vikas Samiti Hanumnagarh for correction of entries and seeking declaration and permanent injunction stating therein that the land was acquired in 1961 for Mandi Samiti for establishment of Milk Chilling Centre. An application under order 7 Rule 11 was filed by the petitioners, which was however rejected vide order dated

(4 of 9)

[2024:RJ-JD:24647]

[CW-5359/2022]

01.04.2004 and which was challenged before Board of Revenue and was dismissed on 16.06.2017.

¶36

The SDO Nohar framed 9 issues and thereafter the SDO Nohar dismissed the suit vide order dated 20.09.2002 (Annex.9). Thereafter the petitioner preferred an appeal (Annex.11) before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Hanumangarh, however, the appeal was dismissed vide order dated 26.06.2003 (Annex.12). Thereafter against the order passed by the RAA, Hanumangarh the petitioners preferred a second appeal (Annex.13) before the Board of Revenue, which was also dismissed vide order dated 26.04.2019 (Annex.14).

¶37

Aggrieved by the orders dated 20.09.2002, 26.06.2003, 26.04.2019 passed by the SDO, RAA, Hanumangarh and BOR, Ajmer, respectively the petitioners have preferred this writ petition.

¶38

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders passed by the Sub Divisional Authority Nohar and Revenue Appellate Authority, Hanumangarh and Board of Revenue, Ajmer are arbitrary and illegal, inasmuch as the Board of Revenue has summarily dismissed the appeal and did not pass a speaking order based on the concurrent findings of the SDO and RAA that the respondent No.1 had obtained possession of land from Mandi Vikas Samiti after depositing the requisite amount. She further submits that the BOR did not consider the material available on record and thus has erred in observing that the petitioners filed the suit with delay.

[2024:RJ-JD:24647]

[CW-5359/2022]

(5 of 9)

Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the RAA, Hanumangarh has not considered the documentary evidence in support of the Khasra No.127, wherein the land was recorded in the name of the petitioners’ father Sh. Binjaram. She further submits that by perusal of the Document Exhibit-D/3, though the possession of the land in question was handed over to the respondent No.1 on 11.06.1981, however no Khasra number was mentioned in the aforementioned document and thus, Document Exhibit-D/3 does not depict as to which land of Khasra number was allotted to the respondent No.1 and thus, the respondent No.1 has no right over the land and has encroached on the land of the petitioners. She further stated that the land was illegally allotted to the respondent No.1 by Mandi Vikas Samiti and thus the finding of the revenue courts that on the basis of suit for correction in revenue record filed by Mandi Vikas Samiti, it has been incorrectly assumed by the revenue courts that the respondent No.1 acquired rights on the land in question.

¶43

Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the RAA has erred in relying on Gazette Notification dated 2.01.1962 and has wrongly observed that the land of Khasra No.793/733 (New Khasra No.127) was acquired by Mandi Vikas Samiti, whereas the land was initially in the Khatedari of Sh. Binjaram (father of the petitioners) for which the compensation was also not paid and without paying the compensation the land in dispute was further acquired and was illegally allotted to the respondent and thus respondent No.1 has illegally taken possession of the land. She further submits that the petitioners are entitled to get the

[2024:RJ-JD:24647]

[CW-5359/2022]

(6 of 9)

compensation of the value of crops during the period which the petitioners were denied the right from cultivating the land and she also submits that the respondent No.1 is not the rightful holder but merely an encroacher on the land in dispute. She further submits that the RAA, Hanumangarh has wrongly observed that the suit was not filed within limitation, however, the suit was filed on 29.10.1993 and in the written statements also it has been stated by the respondent No.1 that Milk Processing Centre was constructed in 1983 thus, the petitioners filed the suit No. 267/1993 within the limitation period of 12 years from the date when the cause of the action arose.

¶48

Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that the SDO has committed an error in computing the time period and has failed to observe that the milk processing centre was constructed in the year 1983 and the suit was filed by the petitioners in 1993 thus, the suit is not barred by limitation and on this ground the judgement passed by the SDO deserves to be set aside. She further submits that no issue was framed by the SDO regarding the fact that the petitioners had given the land during acquisition only on the condition that another land in exchange would be provided or compensation would be given to the petitioners.

¶49

Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the revenue courts have failed to observe that in the letter dated 03.03.1984 of Tehsildar Nohar, the Khasra No.129 was entered in favour of the respondents No.1, however, the Milk Chilling Centre was illegally established at Khasra No. 127 which is the Khatedari

[2024:RJ-JD:24647]

[CW-5359/2022]

(7 of 9)

land of the petitioners and thus the respondent No.1 had no right to raise any construction on the land of the petitioners.

¶54

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record.

¶55

This court finds that the Board of Revenue has observed that the land was initially acquired by Mandi vikas Samiti and thereafter the same was allotted to respondent No. 1 who had also deposited an amount of Rs 36,760/- and took the possession of the land in dispute in the year 1981 itself. The Board of Revenue also held that the SDO and RAA have rightly observed that the Milk Chilling Centre was established on the land in dispute in 1983 and the petitioners have filed the suit after gross delay and that the respondent No. 1 does not have illegal possession over the land in dispute and the concurrent orders passed by the SDO and RAA have been rightly passed.

¶56

This Court finds that the RAA has also observed that Mandi Vikas Samiti Hanumangarh allotted the land to respondent No.1 on 22.06.1981 for which the Respondent No.1 had paid the requisite amount and thereafter, established the Milk Chilling Centre. RAA, Hanumangarh also observed that by perusing the Gazette Notification dated 2.01.1962 it is clear that the land in dispute was acquired by the Mandi Vikas Samiti and thus, the petitioners cannot claim their Khatedari rights on the land in dispute, inasmuch they have miserably failed to prove that the respondent No. 1 was an encroacher and it is an admitted fact that the respondent No.1 was allotted the land by Mandi Vikas

[2024:RJ-JD:24647]

[CW-5359/2022]

(8 of 9)

Samiti and has right over the land in dispute and cannot be removed from the possession of the same by the petitioner. The Revenue Appellate Authority, Hanumgnarh also observed that the Exhibits 3 and 4 placed before it prove that the possession of the land in dispute was handed over to the respondent No.1/defendant on 11.06.1981 and the land was allotted to the Respondent No.1 on 22.06.1981 and the suit was filed by the petitioner on 29.10.1993 which was filed after 12 years of giving the possession to the respondent which is beyond the period of limitation, thus the suit is barred on the grounds of limitation itself.

¶61

This Court further finds that the SDO while considering the Exhibits D/1 to D/6, statements of the Incharge of Milk Chilling Centre & Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Nohar and the Gazette notification dated 02.01.1962 found that the land in dispute was acquired by the Mandi Vikas Samiti for the purpose of establishment of Milk Chilling Centre. Thereafter, the respondent No.1 paid the amount of Rs.35,000 vide Challan dated 23.11.1981 and Rs.1760/- vide Challan dated 11.06.1981 and thereafter the possession of the land in question was handed over to the allottee. The SDO also observed that after culmination of the acquisition proceedings and after handing over of the possession of the land in question, the suit was filed by the petitioners on 18.11.1993 with unexplained delay merely on the basis that petitioner’s names were mutated in the revenue record. The SDO has dismissed the suit filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs claiming compensation and seeking eviction of the respondent/defendant

[2024:RJ-JD:24647]

[CW-5359/2022]

(9 of 9)

No.1 from the land in question, inasmuch as the plaintiffs have failed to prove their Khatedari over the land in question and no relief could have been granted merely on the basis of pendency of the suit for correction of the revenue record.

¶66

This Court further finds that the three revenue courts after considering the entire material placed before them have concurrently dismissed the suit filed by the petitioners/plaintiff, therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the orders impugned.

¶67

The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Stay Petition and other misc. application, if any pending, also stand dismissed.

¶68

(DR. NUPUR BHATI),J

¶69

32-/Devesh-DJ/-

Satpal v. the Chairman

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Satpal v. the Chairman

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kheta Ram Vs Union of India

Mangi Lal Vs Union of India

Hariyala Rajasthan Gaushala Vikash Sansthan Vs the State of Rajasthan

Maruti Guddi Vs State of Rajsthan

Kaluram Vs State of Rajasthan

Vikram Dedar Vs State of Rajasthan