Dismissed

Jodhpur Municipal Corporation (South) v. Ajay Singh

Rajasthan HC19 Jul 2024SAW/642/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a special appeal by the Municipal Corporation against the restoration of khatedari rights to private respondents. Upholding the Revenue Minister's order to set aside a 1970 Collector declaration, the Court relied on precedents allowing relief despite long delays when no intentional obstruction was shown.

What did the court decide?

Special Appeal dismissed; order dated 17.8.2021 passed by the Revenue Minister affirmed.

Jodhpur Municipal Corporation (South) Vs Ajay Singh — Land Acquisition | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:29819-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 642/2024

¶4

Jodhpur Municipal Corporation (South), Jodhpur through its Commissioner.

¶5

----Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Ajay Singh S/o Late Shri Daulat Ram, R/o Kheme Ka Kua, Jodhpur.

¶8

Smt. Kamla W/o Late Shri Daulat Ram, R/o Kheme Ka Kua, Jodhpur.

¶9

The Tehsildar, Jodhpur.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Appellant(s)	: Mr. Suniel Purohit
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Manoj Bhandari, Sr.Advocate
	assisted by Mr. Aniket Tater
	Mr. Vikas Balia, Sr.Advocate assisted
	byMr. Hemant Balani

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

¶13

J U D G M E N T

¶14

19/07/2024

¶15

By the Court : (Per, Hon’ble Justice Kuldeep Mathur)

¶16

The present appeal has been filed by the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 1.5.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1643/2024 whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the order dated 17.8.2021 passed by the learned Revenue Minister, Government of Rajasthan, was dismissed.

¶17

Shorn of unnecessary details, the brief facts of the present case are that the khatedari rights of respondents Nos.1 and 2 over the land situated at Khasra No.751/33 (new Khasra No.860/751)

¶18

(2 of 6) [SAW-642/2024]

¶19

[2024:RJ-JD:29819-DB]

¶20

(hereinafter referred to as ‘land in question’) were transferred in favour of the State Government and the same was declared as khalsa land by the District Collector, Jodhpur vide orders dated 28.5.1970 and 09.06.1970. Various khatedars of Khasra No.751 challenged the order of District Collector, Jodhpur dated 28.5.1970 before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jodhpur under Section 85-A of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1956’). The Revenue Appellate Authority, Jodhpur vide order dated 12.2.2004 annulled and set aside the order passed by District Collector dated 28.5.1970. The order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority was thereafter challenged by the State Government before learned Board of Revenue, Rajasthan by way of filing Revision Petition No.4829/2004, which came to be rejected vide order dated 25.3.2006.

¶21

It is apposite to note that while all the aforestated proceedings were pending adjudication before the revenue authorities, in the interregnum , the land parcel of Khasra No.751 was mutated in the name of the then Urban Improvement Trust and it being the beneficiary of the said parcel of land, challenged the order dated 25.3.2006 passed by the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan before this Court by way of filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5157/2006. The said writ petition too was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 13.9.2006. The intra-court appeal being Special Appeal (Writ) No.907/2006 preferred against the order dated 13.9.2006 was dismissed in limine by a coordinate Bench vide order dated 8.1.2007. The matter was thereafter travelled to Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India vide Special Leave

¶22

[2024:RJ-JD:29819-DB]

¶23

[SAW-642/2024]

¶24

(3 of 6)

¶25

to Appeal (C) No.14156/2008 which also saw the same fate and was rejected by order dated 24.10.2008.

¶26

The case of respondents Nos.1 and 2 is that they have been in continuous possession over a part of land in question and they were unaware of order passed by the District Collector in 1970, reverting the land from khatedari to khalsa and the subsequent allotment of the same in favour of Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur. Respondents Nos.1 and 2 only came to know about passing of the aforesaid order by the District Collector in the year 2018 when appellant – Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur directed them to vacate the land in question and hand over possession. Respondents Nos.1 and 2 immediately on gaining knowledge about passing of aforesaid order, filed a revision petition No.Jodhpur/2018 under Section 83 of the Act of 1956 before the learned Revenue Minister, Government of Rajasthan challenging the order passed by the District Collector. The revision petition came to be dismissed vide order dated 30.7.2019 without affording an opportunity of being heard, to respondents No. 1 and 2. In this backdrop, they preferred a review application under Section 85-A of the Act of 1956 seeking review of the order dated 30.7.2019. The learned Revenue Minister allowed the review application filed by respondents Nos.1 and 2 vide order dated 17.8.2021 whereby the khatedari rights of respondents Nos.1 and 2 were restored.

¶27

Learned counsel for the appellant candidly conceded that the controversy involved in the present matter is squarely covered by a judgment dated 25.5.2023 rendered by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13053/2020 “Jodhpur Development

¶28

[2024:RJ-JD:29819-DB]

¶29

[SAW-642/2024]

¶30

(4 of 6)

¶31

Authority Vs. Mangi Lal & Ors.” . However, he submitted that the private respondents had approached the revenue authorities after a gross delay of 35 years and, therefore, the learned Single Judge ought not to have affirmed the order dated 17.8.2021 passed by the learned Revenue Minister, Govt. of Rajasthan, in exercise of the powers under Section 85-A of the Act of 1956. Learned counsel submitted that respondents Nos.1 and 2 had not furnished any satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay in challenging the orders passed in the year 1970 by the District Collector, Jodhpur. Learned counsel thus beseeched the Court to allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order.

¶32

Per contra, learned counsel representing the private respondents while supporting the judgment and order under appeal submitted that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity. Learned counsel submitted that since the controversy involved in the present matter has already been laid to rest by this Court in the case of Mangi Lal ( supra ) , the present appeal may be dismissed without even delving into merits of the case.

¶33

Heard and considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties at bar. Perused the material available on record.

¶34

The short point that arises for consideration before this Court is as to whether the learned Revenue Minister was justified in exercising the powers under Section 85-A of the Act of 1956 in restoring the khatedari rights of the respondents No.1 and 3 in Khasra No.751/33 (new Khasra No.860/751) and setting aside the order dated 28.5.1970 passed by District Collector, Jodhpur.

¶35

(5 of 6) [SAW-642/2024]

¶36

[2024:RJ-JD:29819-DB]

¶37

The learned Single Bench vide impugned judgment dated 1.5.2024 dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the order passed by the learned Revenue Minister.

¶38

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tridip Kumar Dingal & Ors. Vs. State of W.B. & Ors. reported in (2009)1 SCC 768 has held as under:

¶39

“58. There is no upper limit and there is no lower limit as to when a person can approach a court. The question is one of discretion and has to be decided on the basis of facts before the court depending on and varying from case to case. It will depend upon what the breach of fundamental right and the remedy claimed are and when and how the delay arose.”

¶40

Similarly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sukh Dutt Ratra & Ors. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.

¶41

reported in (2022)7 SCC 508 has held as under:

¶42

“The State cannot shield itself behind the ground of delay and laches in such a situation; there cannot be a ‘limitation’ to doing justice.”

¶43

It is admitted that respondents Nos.1 and 2 are similarly situated khatedars at par with the writ petitioners in whose favour the khatedari rights over the land in question were restored and the order dated 28.5.1970 passed by the District Collector, Jodhpur was set aside by the revenue courts and affirmed by the High Court as well as Hon’ble the Supreme Court. It is also not in dispute that respondents Nos.1 and 2 were in peaceful and uninterrupted possession over the land in question.

¶44

No material whatsoever has been placed on record to indicate that the delay occasioned in approaching the revenue courts was deliberate or intentional. We are of the view that the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Single Bench ought to have interfered with the order

¶45

(6 of 6)

¶46

[2024:RJ-JD:29819-DB]

¶47

[SAW-642/2024]

¶48

dated 17.8.2021 passed by learned Revenue Minister is not tenable more so when the controversy pertaining to land situated at Khasra No.751 had been settled by this Court in the case of Mangi Lal (supra) .

¶49

In wake of discussion made hereinabove, we are of the considered view that the order passed by the learned Single Judge does not warrant any interference.

¶50

Accordingly, the instant Special Appeal is dismissed being devoid of merit.

¶51

No order as to costs.

¶52

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J

¶53

(SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR),J

¶54

14-TarunGoyal/-

Jodhpur Municipal Corporation (South) v. Ajay Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jodhpur Municipal Corporation (South) v. Ajay Singh

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

Prahlad Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Gurmeet Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Agarwal Polysacks Limited Vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I

M/S Ganesh Finishing Vs Rajasthan Industrial and Investment Corporation Ltd.

Mansukh Vs State of Rajasthan

Jagdish Vishnoi Vs State of Rajasthan