Remanded¶38

State of Rajasthan v. Amarnath S/O Babulal

Rajasthan HC9 Apr 2025CW/19368/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.19368/2022; State of Rajasthan v. Amarnath and Ors.; Board of Revenue; reference under Section 82 read with Section 9, Rajasthan Land Revenue Act 1956; maintainability of reference; canal land of CFCD; catchment area; mutation/khatedari; Revenue Appellate Authority Bharatpur judgment dated 11.10.2017; Board order dated 03.10.2018; liberty to State for separate proceedings; Surendra Singh 2009 (2) RRT 1094; Abdul Rehman (2004) 4 WLC (Raj.) 435; remand for fresh adjudication; Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand; decided 09/04/2025; [2025:RJ-JP:15843].

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; the matter remitted to the Board of Revenue for fresh adjudication in light of Surendra Singh (supra); stay application and all pending applications disposed of. ¶38

State of Rajasthan Vs Amarnath S/O Babulal — Rajasthan HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of; the matter remitted to the Board of Revenue for fresh adjudication in light of Surendra Singh (supra); stay application and all pending applications disposed of.

¶38

Issue for consideration

Maintainability of the reference filed by the petitioner-State under Sections 82 and 9 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, in view of the Board's appellate decision dated 03.10.2018 and the liberty granted to the State to assail the order through separate proceedings. +2 more

¶23

Court's answer

The Board, while rejecting the State's reference, did not decide the question of maintainability in light of the Division Bench order in Surendra Singh (supra).

¶36

Ratio / Principle

Since the reference had been rejected on a technical count rather than on merits, the matter was required to be decided afresh by the Board.

¶37

Key takeaways

This Court expressly refrained from entering into the controversy regarding maintainability of the reference in light of the Board's order dated 03.10.2018, leaving that point open.obiter¶37
The matter stands remitted to the Board for its fresh adjudication in light of the Division Bench judgment in Surendra Singh (supra).ratio¶37

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench), single Judge (Anoop Kumar Dhand, J.), S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.19368/2022, decided 09/04/2025 ([2025:RJ-JP:15843]). The State of Rajasthan (through Tehsildar, Bharatpur) challenged the Board of Revenue's judgment dated 15.02.2022 rejecting its reference under Sections 82 and 9 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, whereby the State sought ownership of canal/CFCD catchment land alleged to have been collusively mutated to the private respondents. Earlier, in the appeal by Bhim Singh and Raghuveer Singh decided on 03.10.2018, the Board had quashed the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bharatpur's judgment and decree dated 11.10.2017, declared the parties Khatedars, and expressly granted the State liberty to institute separate proceedings without adverse effect. Observing that the reference had been rejected on a mere technical count and that the Board had failed to decide maintainability in light of the Division Bench ruling in Surendra Singh, 2009 (2) RRT 1094, the Court declined to enter into the maintainability controversy, held the matter required fresh adjudication, and remitted it to the Board in light of Surendra Singh; Abdul Rehman, (2004) 4 WLC (Raj.) 435 (canal land cannot be allotted or used for residential purposes), was noticed on submissions. Stay and pending applications were disposed of.

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:15843]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.19368/2022

¶4

State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar, Bharatpur.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Amarnath S/o Babulal, R/o Outside Surajpole Gate, Bharatpur.

¶8

Bhim Singh S/o Jagani, R/o Surajpole Gate, Bharatpur, Tehsil And District Bharatpur.

¶9

Raghuveer Singh S/o Jagani, R/o Surajpole Gate, Bharatpur, Tehsil And District Bharatpur.

¶10

Mangal Saini S/o Shri Babulal, R/o Prince Nagar, Bharatpur.

¶11

Rukmani D/o Shri Babulal, R/o Prince Nagar, Bharatpur.

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

For Petitioner(s)	:	Mr. Neeraj Batra, GC Ms. Gunjan Chawla
		Mr. Ravinder Pal Singh
		Mr. Vishal Karnani
For Respondent(s)	:	Mr. N.C. Sharma

¶14

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶15

Order

¶16

09/04/2025

¶17

By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned judgment dated 15.02.2022 passed by the Board of Revenue (hereinafter referred to as “Board”) by which reference filed by the petitioner under Section 82 read with Section 9 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1956”) has been rejected.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner-State submits that the land in question belonged to canal of CFCD but the respondents in

[2025:RJ-JP:15843]

[CW-19368/2022]

(2 of 4)

order to get mutation of the land in their names colluded with the revenue authorities. Learned counsel submits that land of canal/catchment area cannot be allotted or used for residential purpose in view of the judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Abdul Rehman Versus State of Rajasthan reported in (2004) 4 WLC (Raj.) 435

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said reference submitted by the petitioner-State has not been decided on its merits but the same has been rejected on a technical count that the matter has already been decided by the Board on earlier occasion i.e. 03.10.2018 while deciding the appeal submitted by Bhim Singh and Raghuveer Singh against one Amarnath and State against the judgment and decree dated 11.10.2017 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bharatpur. Learned counsel submits that while deciding the aforesaid appeal on 03.10.2018 it was specifically observed by the Board that State would not preclude from assailing the judgment separately and judgment dated 03.10.2018 would not have any effect upon the interest of the petitioner-State. Learned counsel submits that misinterpreting the aforesaid order, a reference filed by the State has been rejected. Learned counsel submits that matter is required to be adjudicated on its merits and demerits by the Board, hence interference of this Court is warranted.

¶24

Per contra , learned counsel for the respondents opposed the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the judgment and decree dated 11.10.2017 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority was assailed by Bhim Singh and Raghuveer Singh before the Board by way of filing appeal

[2025:RJ-JP:15843]

[CW-19368/2022]

(3 of 4)

against Amarnath and State, and the same was decided by the Board vide judgment dated 03.10.2018 and the judgment passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority was quashed and set-aside and the parties were declared as Khatedar of the land in question, hence under these circumstances, reference submitted by the petitioner-State with regard to the issue which has already been decided by the Board was not maintainable and the Board has not committed any error in rejecting the same.

¶29

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner could have assailed the order passed by the court below by way of filing separate appeal but instead of doing so reference has been filed and the same is not maintainable in view of the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Surendra Singh & Others Versus Kisturi & Others reported in 2009 (2) RRT 1094 . Learned counsel submits that, under these circumstances, the writ petition is liable to be rejected.

¶30

Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record. 7. Perusal of the record indicates that rival claims have been raised by the petitioner and the respondents with regard to their right over the property in question. This fact is not in dispute that in review proceedings initiated by the respondents, the matter has been finalised at the level of the Board while deciding the appeal submitted by Bhim Singh and Raguveer Singh vide judgment dated 03.10.2018. This fact is also not in dispute that while deciding the aforesaid appeal, the Revenue Board granted liberty to the State to assail the order passed by the authorities by

[2025:RJ-JP:15843]

[CW-19368/2022]

(4 of 4)

initiating separate proceedings and the order dated 03.10.2018 will not have any adverse effect upon the same.

¶35

Thereafter, a reference was submitted by the petitioner before the Board claiming the ownership over the property in question on a technical count that the canal land of CFCD is a catchment area and the same could not be allotted/entered in the name of private parties.

¶36

The question of maintainability has not been decided by the Board in light of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Surendra Singh (supra).

¶37

In the considered view of this Court, the matter was required to be decided afresh by the Board. This Court is not going into the controversy with regard to maintainability of reference in light of the order dated 03.10.2018 passed by the Board. The matter is remitted to the Board for its fresh adjudication in light of the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Surendra Singh (supra).

¶38

Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. Stay application as well as all applications (pending, if any) also stand disposed of.

¶39

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶40

Karan/53

State of Rajasthan v. Amarnath S/O Babulal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Rajasthan v. Amarnath S/O Babulal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Chandrakishore Gupta S/O Shri Prabhudayal Gupta Vs Shri Mahesh Chand Gupta S/O Shri Dharmchand Gupta

Managing Committee Dayanand Bal Niketan Vs Barkha Lawas and Anr.

Managing Committee D a v Uchh Vs Niranjan Bagri and Anr.

Parsadi Vs Board of Revenue

V R High School Managing Committee Vs Collector

Temple Govind Dev Ji Maharaj Vs State of Rajasthan