Nenu And Ors vs Tikma And Ors

By way of the present writ petition, petitioner has challenged the order dated 30.07.2019 passed by the Board of Revenue, whereby a revision petition filed by the petitioners along with their mother Smt. Jamuna, widow of Shri Dhupla, has been rejected.

The facts appertained for the present purposes are that the petitioners had challenged Mutation Entry No.1269 dated 25.08.1984 by way of filing an appeal under Section 75 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "Act of 1956").

It is pertinent to note that the said appeal came to be filed in the year 2008 (after about 24 years) impleading their brothers as party-respondents, who had already sold the land to the private respondents, who are the successive owners of this subject land.

In the appeal aforesaid filed by the petitioners, they had contended that after the death of their Father Dhupla, they had right to inherit and their names should also have been entered in the revenue records.

The petitioners' appeal was rejected by the Learned Additional District Collector, Jalore vide order dated 24.12.2010 inter alia, observing that the provisions of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 are not applicable to the petitioners who belong to 'Mena' Community - a Scheduled Tribe. While dismissing petitioners' appeal, a passing observation was also made by the appellate authority that widow of late Dhupla (petitioners' mother) was also not impleaded as a Party.

Feeling aggrieved of the order dated 24.12.2010, petitioners preferred second appeal under Section 76 of the Act of 1956, which too, came to be dismissed by the Learned Additional Divisional Commissioner, Jodhpur vide its order dated 16.09.2015, inter alia, holding that petitioners who belong to Scheduled Tribe are not governed by the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act.

Feeling aggrieved of the order aforesaid, the petitioners preferred a revision petition under Section 84 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, before the Revenue Board, Ajmer (Revision No.6615/2015), however, this time while also impleading their mother Jamuna was impleaded as petitioner/revisioner.

Learned Member-Board of Revenue dismissed petitioners' revision petition while holding that the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 are not applicable to the petitioners and petitioners' challenge to mutation entry suffered from inordinate delay.

Relevant portion of the order passed by the Board of Revenue reads thus :-

"6- जहां तक हिन्दू उत्तराधिकार अधिनियम के अनुसूचित जन जाति पर लागू नहीं होने का प्रष्न है, इसमें कोई विवाद नहीं है और यह स्पश्ट है कि अनुसूचित जन-जाति के व्यक्तियों पर धारा 2(2) हिन्दू उत्तराधिकार अधिनियम, 1956 के तहत् उक्त अधिनियम के प्रावधान लागू नहीं होते है। हस्तगत् प्रकरण में दोनों ही अधीनस्थ न्यायालयों द्वारा यह पाते हुए कि पक्षकारान मीणा जाति के हैं, जो कि अनुसूचित जन जाति के हैं इसलिए हिन्दू उत्तराधिकार अधिनियम के प्रावधान प्रकरण पर लागू नहीं होते हैं, इस कारण नामांतरकरण संख्या 1269 दिनांक 25-6-84 को विद्वान अधीनस्थ न्यायालयों द्वारा सही ठहराया गया है। इसके विरूद्ध निगरानीकर्तागण की ओर से इस न्यायालय के समक्ष तर्क प्रस्तुत किया गया है कि वह मीणा जाति से नहीं होकर मेणा जाति से ताल्लुक रखते हैं। यहां यह भार निगरानीकार पर ही था कि वे इस तथ्य को न्यायालय के समक्ष स्थापित करते किन्तु उनकी ओर से इस प्रकार की कोई भी साक्ष्य इस न्यायालय या अधीनस्थ न्यायालयों के समक्ष प्रस्तुत नहीं की गई है जिससे प्रकट होता हो कि वे अनुसूचित जन जाति के सदस्य नहीं है। 7- जहां तक निगरानीकर्ता संख्या-3 जमना का संबंध है, यह भी स्पश्ट स्थिति है कि उसकी ओर से नामांतरकरण को कभी भी चुनौती नहीं दी गई और महत्वपूर्ण रूप से अधीनस्थ न्यायालय की पत्रावलियों से यह भी प्रकट होता है कि नामांतरकरणों को 24 वर्श की लम्बी अवधि पष्चात् निगरानीकार संख्या-1 व 2 की ओर से चुनौती दी गई। किन्तु देरी को क्षमा किये जाने का कोई युक्तियुक्त व न्यायोचित कारण निगरानीकार की ओर से प्रस्तुत नहीं किया गया। पत्रावली पर यह स्थिति भी प्रकट है कि दर्जषुदा खातेदार द्वारा आराजियात को जरिये पंजीकृत विक्रय पत्र अप्रार्थी संख्या-7 को तथा अप्रार्थी संख्या-7 द्वारा अप्रार्थी संख्या 8 से 10 को विक्रय किया गया और जिसका नामांतरकरण भी विधि अनुसार खोला जा चुका है। यह स्वीकृत स्थिति है कि विक्रयपत्रों को आज तक कोई चुनौती सक्षम न्यायालय के समक्ष नहीं दी गई है। "

Mr. Bhati, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the Learned Member-Board of Revenue has committed a serious error of law in non-suiting petitioners and ignoring the fact that the petitioners had brought a case that they belong to 'Mena' Community and not 'Meena' Community. He argued that 'Mena' is not a Scheduled Tribe, hence, the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act are equally applicable to them.

He further added that the Board has also erred in, ignoring the fact that Jamuna (widow of Dhupla) was also one of the petitioners before the Board and at least she (petitioners' mother) had a right of inheritance, being wife of the deceased and the petitioners, having a power of attorney in their favour, were entitled to a share in the property by virtue of such power of attorney.

The Courts below have concurrently held that the petitioners, hailing from Scheduled Tribe are not governed by the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act. The petitioners have not brought on record any evidence evincing that by virtue of the customs they follow or personal laws applicable to them, being daughters, they have a right to inherit the property of their ancestors. The petitioners have also not brought any evidence to the effect that petitioners' mother Jamuna also had any right of inheritence.

It is for the first time before the Board of Revenue, the petitioners changed their stand and asserted that they are from 'Mena' Community and thus, not Scheduled Tribe. While holding that such stance at a belated stage is not permissible, this Court is of the firm view that even such assertion was not well founded.

Provisions of Hindu Succession Act are not applicable to the petitioner in the face of sub-section (2) of Section 2 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

Be that as it may. Even if for the sake of argument it is assumed that petitioners' mother Smt. Jamuna had the right to inherit, then also, the petitioners being "daughters" of Jamuna and Dhupla, cannot claim any right of inheritance. The purported power of attorney which the petitioners' claim to have in their favour, is nothing but a right to sue on behalf of Jamuna and the same by itself does not confer upon the petitioners any right to inherit the property sans any customary law.

That apart, the petitioners had assailed the mutation entry after about 24 years, that too, without impleading the purchasers as party-respondents (who of course have got themselves impleaded later on).

In considered opinion of this Court, the Courts below have committed no illegality or irregularity in rejecting petitioners' appeals/revision petition.

There is no merit or force in the present writ petition, the same is, therefore, dismissed.

Stay petition also stands dismissed.