AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the order dated 17th May, 2017 passed by the Board of Revenue on an appeal preferred by the
respondent.
It is a case where a land belonging to Sonia was mutated in favour of respondent-Kalu. The mutation was made pursuant to order of the
Tehsildar. The petitioner challenged the order of the Tehsildar by maintaining an appeal before the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Bharatpur.
The Additional Divisional Commissioner set aside the order of the Tehsildar. The respondent-Kalu preferred an appeal before the Board of
Revenue, Ajmer to challenge the order of the Additional Divisional Commissioner, which has been allowed. Against the said order, present writ
petition has been preferred by the petitioner.
The facts of the case are that one Sonia married to Gheesi and respondent-Kalu said to have born out of their wedlock, accordingly, land
belonging to Sonia was mutated in his name. The Additional Divisional Commissioner, however, found that no evidence was led to show that Kalu
was born out of the wedlock of Sonia and Gheesi, rather, Gheesi married to another person-Kesra and Kalu born out of their wedlock. The
mutation of the property opened in favour of respondent-Kalu in pursuance of the order of the Tehsildar was set aside. The Board of Revenue,
however, interfered in the order of the Additional Divisional Commissioner.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that in the statement of Gheesi, she initially denied any issue out of wedlock of Sonia, however, with
improvement, she stated that Kalu born out of their wedlock. Gheesi then admitted that other three sons took birth out of the wedlock of Kesra
with whom she later on married.
Learned counsel for petitioner has referred voter list where Kalu has been shown to be son of Kesra. Ignoring the aforesaid, the Tehsildar
mutated the property of Sonia mainly on the ground that Kalu has not taken share in the property of Kesra. The Additional Divisional
Commissioner reversed the order after considering evidence but then Board of Revenue interfered therein without considering material on record.
A prayer is made to set aside the order passed by the Board of Revenue.
Learned counsel for respondent has opposed the writ petition. He submits that mutation of the land was rightly made in favour of Kalu after the
death of Sonia thus after making inquiry, the mutation was wrongly interfered by the Additional Divisional Commissioner and, accordingly, set
aside by the Board of Revenue.
It is also submitted that voter list was got changed subsequently to show Kalu to be son of Sonia instead of Kesra. He further submitted that if
Kalu would have been son of Kesra then should have taken share in his property, accordingly, mutation of the land of Sonia has rightly been made.
I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The only dispute for consideration is as to whether Kalu is son of Sonia or Kesra. The perusal of record does not show that respondent
produced any documentary evidence to show Kalu to be son of Sonia other than to state that he has not taken share in the property of Kesra and
produced affidavit and certificates of Sarpanch, etc. The statement of Gheesi is material who initially admitted that Sonia died issue-less but with
the improvement, she stated that Kalu born out of wedlock of Sonia and herself and remained with Sonia for few years but later on came to her.
The self-contradiction in the statement exists and in view of the aforesaid, voter list becomes relevant. The documentary evidence shows Kalu to
be son of Kesra but it was ignored by the Tehsildar as well as Board of Revenue. It is even the Girdawari No.2056 to 2059 of Village Pilandi
apart from Jamabandi No.2039 to 2042 where Kalu was shown to be son of Kesra. It is apart from allotment of Khasra No.328 where also Kalu
was shown to be son of Kesra. The Additional Divisional Commissioner thus rightly interfered in the order passed by the Tehsildar. The Board of
Revenue has interfered in the order on surmises and conjunctures. Therein, they did not even consider the voter list where Kalu was shown to be
son of Kesra apart from Girdwari and Jamabandi and allotment of land to Kalu after showing to be son of Kesra. Merely for the reason that Kalu
has not taken share in the property of Kesra, it does not mean that he can be treated to be son of Sonia against the independent documentary
evidence. The Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Bonli has also given certificate showing Kalu to be son of Kesra and otherwise there exist
contradiction in the subsequent certificates given by different persons. It could not have been considered against the documentary evidence. Taking
into consideration the material on record and more specifically the voter list, conclusion drawn by the Board of Revenue holding Kalu to be son of
Sonia cannot be accepted and accordingly, impugned order passed by the Board of Revenue is interfered and is set aside while maintaining the
order of the Additional Divisional Commissioner.
The writ petition is allowed with the aforesaid.