Dismissed

Smt. Beela Devi W/O Late Shri Badri v. Bhonri Devi D/O Late Shri Badri, W/O Late Shri Bhonri Lal

Rajasthan HC13 Feb 2024SAW/152/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Special appeal dismissed holding that under Section 135(2) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, only the Tehsildar is competent to hold inquiries and make mutation entries in disputed cases, whereas the Gram Panchayat is restricted to undisputed cases.

What did the court decide?

Curia dismissed the special appeal and directed parties to adduce evidence before the Tehsildar during the inquiry.

Smt. Beela Devi W/O Late Shri Badri Vs Bhonri Devi D/O… — Land Acquisition | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 152/2024

¶3

Smt. Beela Devi W/o Late Shri Badri, Aged About 84 Years, Resident Of Village Shrikishanpura, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur.

¶4

Mahendra Kumar S/o Sarvan, Aged About 42 Years, Resident Of Village Shrikishanpura, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur.

¶5

----Appellants

¶6

Versus

¶7

Bhonri Devi D/o Late Shri Badri, W/o Late Shri Bhonri Lal, Resident Of Village Shri Kishanpura, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur At Present R/o Village Ramnagariya, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur.

¶8

Gram Panchayat Vidhani Through Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Vidhani, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Prahlad Sharma, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Raj Kamal Gaur, Adv.

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL

¶12

Order

¶13

13/02/2024

¶14

Appellant has preferred this appeal challenging the order dated 06.12.2023 passed by learned Single Judge, whereby the order passed by the Board of Revenue was confirmed.

¶15

It is contended by counsel for the appellant that appellant No.2 is having a registered Will is his favour. In accordance with the Will, mutation entries were made in his favour, the same has been challenged and the Board of Revenue has remanded the matter to Tehsildar to hold an inquiry and decide the matter

¶16

[SAW-152/2024]

¶17

(2 of 3)

¶18

afresh. It is also contended that Gram Panchayat has already conducted the inquiry and has passed mutation orders. It is further contended that the Board of Revenue as well as the learned Single Judge have erred in interpreting Section 135(2) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’). It is also contended that the notification has been issued empowering Gram Panchayat to pass orders under Section 135(2) of the Act.

¶19

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has opposed the appeal. It is contended that under Section 135(2) of the Act, Tehsildar is required to conduct an inquiry before making the entries of mutation in disputed matters. The Board of Revenue has remanded the matter to the Tehsildar for conducting inquiry under Section 135(2) of the Act and the learned Single Judge has also come to the conclusion that there is no error in the order passed by the learned Board of Revenue as Tehsildar is the only authority which is competent to make mutation in disputed matters.

¶20

We have considered the contentions and perused the impugned order as well as the order passed by the Board of Revenue.

¶21

Section 135(2) of the Act has been quoted by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order, wherein the Tehsildar is empowered to hold an inquiry under Section 135(2) of the Act. As far as the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that notification has been issued in 1982, whereby Gram Panchayat has been authorized to conduct inquiry, is concerned, we have perused the notification issued on 04.09.1982. This notification also authorizes the Gram Panchayat to make mutation entries only

¶22

[SAW-152/2024]

¶23

(3 of 3)

¶24

in undisputed cases. In disputed cases, the Tehsildar is authorized to make mutation entries after inquiry. In the present case there is a dispute between parties, hence Tehsildar can make mutation entries after inquiry. The Board of Revenue as well as the learned Single Judge has not committed any error while passing the impugned orders, hence, we do not find any force in the present special appeal (writ) and the same is accordingly dismissed.

¶25

Parties would be free to adduce all evidences before the Tehsildar during inquiry.

¶26

(BHUWAN GOYAL),J

¶27

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

¶28

HEENA/MAHIMA/02

Smt. Beela Devi W/O Late Shri Badri v. Bhonri Devi D/O Late Shri Badri, W/O Late Shri Bhonri Lal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Beela Devi W/O Late Shri Badri v. Bhonri Devi D/O Late Shri Badri, W/O Late Shri Bhonri Lal

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

Kalyan Singh Son of Shri Bhagwan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Raju Sharma S/O Shri Girraj Prasad Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan

Mahendra Kumar S/O Shri Sahiram Vs State of Rajasthan

Madho Lal Since Deceased Vs District Collector

Karamveer S/O Shri Dharmveer Vs the Union of India

S.K. Finance Ltd. Vs Sachin Kumar Jangid S/O Shri Ratan Lal Jangid