Hari Ram vs Board Of Revenue Ajmer, Ajmer And Ors

The petitioner has approached this Court, laying challenge to the orders passed by the authorities below, whereby they have rejected petitioner's claim of getting Khatedari rights with respect to an agricultural land, which has been in his possession for more than 30 years.

The facts in brief are that the petitioner filed an application before the Collector, Hanumangarh for declaration of his tenancy rights over 6 Bigha land in Khasra No.266 of Village Nehrana, Tehsil Nohar. Petitioner's such application came to be rejected by the Collector, Hanumangarh, vide its order dated 19.10.2002, with observations that the petitioner failed to prove his long possession over the land, for which tenancy rights were claimed and that the contentious land being 'Johad Paytan' was a land of public use.

In an appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 19.10.2002, the appellate authority observed that since the land in question is 'Johad Paytan' (catchment area of a pond), tenancy rights cannot be granted to the petitioner and that the evidence produced by the petitioner does not prove his long and settled possession.

Dissatisfied with the order passed by the Collector, Hanumangarh - Revenue Appellate Authority, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Board of Revenue, Ajmer which too has been dismissed. Learned members of the Board have held that even if it is presumed that the petitioner is having age old possession over the land, no tenancy rights can be granted to the petitioner, given the fact that the land is 'Johad Paytan' (catchment area) and recorded as such, in the revenue record. It has also been held that on the basis of adverse possession, the tenancy/Khatedari rights cannot be granted for an agricultural land.

Mr. Deepak Nehra, learned counsel for the petitioner, inviting attention of the Court towards the report dated 15.10.1986 (Annexure-2) prepared by the Tehsildar, Nohar, contended that it has been categorically observed that the rain water from the subject land does not go to the pond, as such, the same is not 'Johad Paytan'. He also argued that this very document proves that petitioner is having long and settled possession over the contentious land.

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court does not find any case worth warranting interference in its supervisory jurisdiction. Indisputably, the petitioner claims to have possession over a piece of land which has been recorded as 'Johad Paytan' (catchment area). Without disturbing the finding, regarding petitioner's possession, even if, for the sake of argument, it is assumed that the petitioner is having possession over six bigha land, this Court is of the firm view that in light of Section 16 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, the petitioner cannot claim any right, much less Khatedari rights, as the land is a 'Johad Paytan' or forms catchment area of the pond. Because in light of the clear statutory provisions and in light of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Gulab Kothari Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.; reported in 2019 (1) RLW 708(Raj.), no Khatedari rights can be conferred upon the land which has been recorded as catchment area or 'Johad Paitan'.

As an upshot of the discussion above, the writ petition fails so also the stay petition.