Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

BAGHA RAM & ORS versus B.O.R. & ORS

High Court of Rajasthan

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


BAGHA RAM & ORS v B.O.R. & ORS - CW Case No. 3500 of 2004 [2004] RD-RJ 213 (23 August 2004)



CIVIL WRITS No. 3500 of 2004



B.O.R. & ORS

Mr. JR BENIWAL, for the appellant / petitioner

Date of Order : 23.8.2004




By the impugned order, the Board of Revenue has accepted the reference, and thereby set aside the mutation no.5 and 155, and has also directed the land to be recorded in the name of Mandir Shri

Mallinathji in the revenue records.

It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the

Mandir Shri Mallinathji was a Doli, while khatedar whereof was Khima, as is clear from Annexure-2, which is said to be Parcha Tajbij Lagan, and Annexure-3, which is the Jamabandi of Samvat 2009 and 2011. It is contended that in that view of the matter, since Khima was the khatedar with resumption of Jagir, he acquired khatedari rights, and could sell the land, and therefore, the mutation could not be set aside.

I have considered the submissions and have perused the impugned orders.

A look at Annexure-1, the order of the Collector, shows that before him, the petitioners submitted a reply, wherein a stand was taken that the land has never been a Doli land, rather Khima was the

Upbhokta, and therefore, he had full right to sell. Likewise, the present petitioner no.1 had also taken the stand that the land was of khatedari of Khima, and he had a right to sell. It has been held by the

Collector, in the order, Annexure-1, making reference, that the land was recorded as Doli, and Khima was only mentioned as Upbhokta, but then, Upbhokta has no right to have the land recorded in his own name without any legal order, nor does he have any right to sell the land.

With these findings, reference was made for setting aside the mutations, and the Board of Revenue has accepted that reference.

In my view, the impugned order does not suffer from any error requiring interference by this Court in writ jurisdiction. It was not shown, either before the learned Courts below, or before this Court, that before the land was sold by Khima, he was ever conferred any khatedari rights over the land, so as to entitle him to alienate the land. In that view of the matter, when the land was of the temple Doli

Mandir Shri Mallinathji, the Upbhokta cannot sell the land, and the reference has rightly been accepted. It is a different story that the order of the Board of Revenue is as old as 21.4.99, and the present writ petition has been filed only on 22.3.02, not even whispering any explanation for this long delay, therefore, even on the ground of latches as well, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

Thus, taken from any stand point, I do not find any sufficient ground to entertain the writ petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed summarily.

( N P GUPTA ),J. /tarun/


Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.