State Of Rajasthan And Ors vs Ladu And Ors

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-department aggrieved against order dated 21.11.2013 passed by Assistant Collector, Mount Abu, order dated 15.05.2015 passed by Revenue Appellate Authority and order dated 26.03.2018 passed by Board of Revenue, Ajmer, whereby, three courts have concurrently held in favour of the respondents.

A suit was filed by respondents under Sections 88, 188, 91, 92A and 209 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 ('the Act of 1955') seeking declaration against the petitioners based on the fact that the land in question was allotted to Soma S/o Kala by order dated 17.02.1966. The requisite amount was deposited at the relevant time and possession was handed over and since then the plaintiffs were in possession of the land. It was then indicated that despite the fact that the possession was already handed over to the allottee, his name was not recorded in the revenue record and in the settlement conducted in 1972-73 the land in question was recorded in the name of Forest Department. Based on which, repeatedly the notices were being issued for vacating the land by the Forest Department and, as such, declaration was sought pertaining to rights of the plaintiffs in the land in question and for recording their names as khatedars.

The suit was contested by the appellant-State, wherein, Assistant Collector framed five issues and after evidence was led by the parties, the suit was decreed on the Assistant Collector coming to the conclusion that the land in question was duly allotted and that in the settlement conducted in the year 1972-73 the land was wrongly recorded as belonging to the Forest Department.

Feeling aggrieved, the State filed an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority.

The Revenue Appellate Authority also reiterated the findings as recorded by the Assistant Collector and dismissed the appeal.

The second appeal was filed by the department before the Board of Revenue, wherein also, the concurrent findings recorded by both the courts below were confirmed and the second appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the three courts below were not justified in decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiffs/rejecting the appeals filed by the department, inasmuch as, the land in question was recorded as forest land and, therefore, the judgments passed by the three authorities require interference by this Court.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and have perused the material available on record.

Except for the plea that the land in question was recorded as forest land, nothing has been placed on record to contest that the land in question stood transferred to the revenue department, which in turn allotted the land to the plaintiffs in the year 1966, based on which, they came in possession of the land in question.

Once based on the fact that the land in question was transferred to the revenue department and the allotment was apparently made in favour of the plaintiffs, merely because in the settlement conducted in the year 1972-73 the land was recorded as forest land, by itself cannot confer title on the petitioner-department so as to contest the plea raised by the plaintiffs.

In view thereof, no case for interference in the three concurrent judgments is made out. The writ petition filed by the petitioners has no substance, the same is, therefore, dismissed.