Chatur Bhuj Vs State

Smt. Sohan, aged 28 years, w/o Omji, Resident of Village Udaipuriya, Tehsil Mangrole. 8. Girraj, aged 37 years, s/o Mangilal, Resident of Ganesh Khera. 9. Bhim Singh, aged 35 years, s/o Mangilal, Resident of Ganesh Khera.

¶19

Smt. Geeta, aged 33 years, w/o Hem Kaushal, Resident of Gusai Ki Bamoli, Tehsil Sheopur (M.P.)

¶20

Dulichand, aged 31 years, s/o Mangilal, Resident of Ganesh Khera.

¶21

Brijraj, aged 29 years, s/o Mangilal, Resident of Ganesh Khera. 13. Smt. Guddi, aged 26 years, w/o Ram Singh, Resident of Ganesh Khera.

¶22

Kumari Chandra Klan, aged 20 years, d/o Mangilal, Resident of Ganesh Khera.

¶23

----Respondents

¶24

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjay Mehrishi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Neeraj Batra, GC Mr. Mahendra Singh

[2025:RJ-JP:9906]

[CW-2583/1989]

(2 of 7)

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

¶29

Order

¶30

05/03/2025

¶31

Heard learned counsel for both sides and carefully perused the record, which is available before this Court.

¶32

Instant civil writ petition was preferred by the original petitioner- Chatur Bhuj (who passed away during course of writ petition and his natural heirs have come on record), feeling aggrieved by the judgment dated 19.12.1988 passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer, declaring 5.09 standard acre land as surplus, liable to be acquired by the State Government.

¶33

The relevant facts, in nutshell, as culled out from the record are that:

¶34

(i) original petitioner- Chatur Bhuj and Shri Mangya were two brothers, who were holding agricultural land, measuring 225.1 bigha in their joint Khatedari, situated at Village Ganesh Khera, Tehsil Piplada, District Kota. Ceiling proceedings were initiated and as per old ceiling law and rules, no surplus land was found in their Khatedari and possession, as such the ceiling proceedings were dropped vide order dated 25.04.1975. However, on promulgation of the new Act i.e. Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holding Act, 1973, in the light of Section 15(2), the ceiling proceedings were again ordered to be reopened by the Deputy Secretary Revenue (Ceiling) vide order dated 25.06.1981.

[2025:RJ-JP:9906]

[CW-2583/1989]

(3 of 7)

(ii) In pursuance of the order dated 25.06.1981, Additional Collector (Ceiling), Kota, vide judgment dated 20.09.1985, held that the land is of Chambal Command Area and calculated the standard acre of 225.1 bigha land as 122.42 standard acre land.

¶39

(iii) Both the Khatedars were found to be held entitled for 30 standard acre land for each, taking into consideration the members of their family, hence, allowed the khatedars to retain 60 standard acre, remaining 62.42 acre land was declared as surplus and liable to be acquired by the State Government. (iv) Both Khatedars preferred a joint appeal against the order dated 20.09.1985 before the Board of Revenue. In the appeal, Board of Revenue examined the matter on merits and clearly observed that from the record, the lands do not fall in the category of Chambal Command Area and the Additional Collector (Ceiling), Kota committed error in calculating 122.42 standard acre land of 225.1 bighas of land. The Board of Revenue, instead of remanding the matter to consider the ceiling area as per soil classification, after relying upon the returns of the disputed lands available on record and following the old ceiling law, recalculated the ceiling area and observed that the available 225.1 bighas of land of both the khatedars, is equivalent to 70.18 standard acre. (v) The Board of Revenue observed that 70.18 standard acre land belongs to two brother-Khatedars, hence, each Khatedar gets 35.09-35.09 standard acre land in his share on the appointed date i.e. 01.04.1966. Then, the Board of Revenue calculated the number of family members of writ petitioner Chatur Bhuj, which were found to be five in number, hence, Chatur Bhuj was held

[2025:RJ-JP:9906]

[CW-2583/1989]

(4 of 7)

entitled to retain 30 standard acre land and his 5.09 standard acre land was declared as surplus, liable to be acquired by the State Government, but as far as another Khatedar Mangya is concerned, in his family, seven members were noticed, hence, he was entitled to retain 35.09 standard acre land.

¶44

(vi) In the aforesaid backdrop of factual matrix, Khatedar Mangya has accepted the criteria of assessing the ceiling land on the basis of returns of land in question and not challenged the judgment passed by the Board of Revenue dated 19.12.1988, however, original writ petitioner Chatur Bhuj has challenged the judgment of Board of Revenue, by way of filing the instant writ petition.

¶45

Learned counsel for the petitioners, in his first phase of arguments, though tried to persuade this Court that the calculation of ceiling land was made, treating the lands to the nature of Chambal Command Area, which is ex-facie illegal and against record. Learned counsel submits that the ceiling area must be calculated as per the soil classification of the land and in support of such contention, learned counsel relied upon and referred two judgments of Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, in cases of Ram Pratap Vs. State of Rajasthan [1988 2 RLR 520] and Kesri Lal v. State of Rajasthan [1997 0 RRD 150]. Hence, learned counsel for petitioners prayed for remanding the matter.

¶46

But in the second phase of argument the submission of learned counsel for petitioners is that even if the calculation made by the Board of Revenue, based on the returns of the disputed

[2025:RJ-JP:9906]

[CW-2583/1989]

(5 of 7)

lands, is treated as correct and 5.09 standard acre land is found to be surplus, yet same is not liable to be acquired for the reasons that:-

¶51

(I) 4 bighas 6 biswas area of land out of the disputed land of 225.1 bighas, has been acquired for the digging of canal and that area has not been deduced by the Board of Revenue;

¶52

(II) the measurement of remaining area is within the limit of fragmented area in the Kota city, which as per Rule 30(i) (2) of Rajasthan Tenancy (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) (Government) Rules, 1963, is not liable to be acquired and can be permitted to retain by Khatedar, even if it is a surplus from ceiling limit.

¶53

Hence, the submission of learned counsel for petitioners is that taking into consideration the above-referred two points, the 5.09 standard acre land of petitioner, which has been declared surplus and liable to be acquired, is not required to be acquired and to this extent, the judgment of the Board of Revenue suffers from perversity and jurisdictional error, hence, requires modification.

¶54

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the surplus land of 5.09 standard acre, has been in continuous, actual and physical possession of the original petitioner since beginning, till date.

¶55

Learned Government Counsel, appearing on behalf of State, has repelled the arguments of counsel for petitioners, however, could not counter the two points, raised by the counsel for the

[2025:RJ-JP:9906]

[CW-2583/1989]

(6 of 7)

petitioners, as reproduced hereinabove. The prayer of learned Government Counsel is that judgment of Board of Revenue is just and proper, which does not warrant any interference by this Court and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶60

This Court finds from the record that it is an undisputed fact that 4 bighas 6 biswas area of the disputed land out of 225.1 bighas was acquired by the Government of Rajasthan for the purpose of digging of the canal, but that area has not been taken into consideration and has not been deduced by the Board of Revenue, which obviously requires to be deduced.

¶61

It is further undisputed that the disputed lands were in the joint Khatedari of both the brothers i.e. Chatur Bhuj and Mangya, thus, if 5.09 standard acre land is declared as surplus out of the share of Chatur Bhuj, then 4 bighas 6 biswas area is liable to be deducted from this surplus land, which had been acquired for digging of the canal. The remaining area of surplus land, considering its measurement, amounted to a fragmented land and falls within the purview of fragmented land as per Rule 30(i)(2) of the Rajasthan Tenancy (Fixation of Ceiling on Land)(Government) Rules, 1963, which is not liable to be acquired and petitioner can be allowed to retain the same.

¶62

This court finds that the Board of Revenue has not committed any jurisdictional error in calculating the land area of ceiling limit, on the basis of returns of revenue record of land in question, instead of remanding the matter to the Additional Collector (Ceiling) to reconsider the ceiling limit as per soil classification. In addition, one of the Khatedar Mangya

[2025:RJ-JP:9906]

[CW-2583/1989]

(7 of 7)

(represented by respondents No.5 to 14 herein) has accepted the judgment of Board of Revenue and has not assailed the same, hence, setting aside the judgment of the Board of Revenue as a whole would cause prejudice to the legal representatives of Mangya. Hence, remand of matter on the prayer of one of the Khatedar only is unwarranted. Thus, this Court has considered the alternative arguments made by counsel for petitioners, in the second phase of his submission.

¶67

For the aforesaid reasons, this Court finds that Board of Revenue committed perversity and jurisdictional error in not pondering over two points i.e. (I) & (II), referred in Para No. 5 of this Order and discussed hereinabove, hence, the judgment passed by the Board of Revenue dated 19.12.1988 requires to be modified to the extent that 5.09 standard acre land from the share of original writ petitioner Chatur Bhuj @ Chatra, even if surplus, is not liable to be acquired by the State Government. Rest portion of the judgment dated 19.12.1988, passed by the Board of Revenue is maintained.

¶68

As a result, the writ petition stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.

¶69

Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.

¶70

(SUDESH BANSAL),J

¶71

Sachin Sharma/ 44

Chatur Bhuj v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chatur Bhuj v. State

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

Ramesh Choudhary Vs State of Raj and Ors.

M/S Assam Tea Product Vs M/S Shakti Merchant Private Limited

M/S. Aquagri Processing Private Limited Vs State of Rajasthan

Kedar Prasad Son of Badriprasad Vs Ramavtar Son of Shri Badri Prasad

Smt. Saira Bano W/O Mohammad Ramzan Vs Managing Director

M/S Savour India Private Limited Vs Murari Lal Sharma Food Safety Officer