Skip to content


Lrs of Pat Ram Vs. Bhajanlal @ Bhajan Singh and ors - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtRajasthan Jodhpur High Court
Decided On
AppellantLrs of Pat Ram
RespondentBhajanlal @ Bhajan Singh and ors
Excerpt:
.....the respondents (lrs of patram) by the court : in the year 1971-72, a piece of land measuring 18 bighas 8 biswas in chak no.2dd murabba no.162/62 was allotted to one mr. patram (now deceased) for temporary cultivation. a lease deed was accordingly executed. mr. patram submitted an application as per the provisions of sub-clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of rule 5 of the rajasthan colonisation (allotment of government land to post 1955 temporary cultivation lease holders and other landless persons in the rajasthan canal project area) rules, 1971. the competent authority in the year 1974 arrived at the conclusion that (2) temporary cultivator mr. patram was entitled to have allotment of 12 bighas 4 biswas of land for permanent cultivation. a challenge to the same was given by mr. patram with.....
Judgment:
(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ORDER D.B. CIVIL REVIEW PETITION NO.94/2011 IN D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.02460/2008 LRs of Patram Versus Bhajan Lal @ Bhajan Singh & Ors. Date of Order ::

12. 02.2013 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BANWARI LAL SHARMA Mr. Sukesh Bhati for the review-petitioner Mr. Chaitanya Gahlot for the respondents (LRs of Patram) BY THE COURT : In the year 1971-72, a piece of land measuring 18 bighas 8 biswas in Chak No.2DD Murabba No.162/62 was allotted to one Mr. Patram (now deceased) for temporary cultivation. A lease deed was accordingly executed. Mr. Patram submitted an application as per the provisions of sub-clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Rajasthan Colonisation (Allotment of Government Land to Post 1955 Temporary Cultivation Lease Holders and other Landless Persons in the Rajasthan Canal Project Area) Rules, 1971. The competent authority in the year 1974 arrived at the conclusion that (2) temporary cultivator Mr. Patram was entitled to have allotment of 12 bighas 4 biswas of land for permanent cultivation. A challenge to the same was given by Mr. Patram with assertion that the entire chunk of land measuring 18 bighas 8 biswas was supposed to be allotted to him being unirrigated part of land. The claim of above-named Patram came to be accepted under an order dated 17.05.1978. Accordingly, a direction was given to allot 6 bighas 6 biswas of land to Mr. Patram. Suffice to mention here that under an order dated 30.09.1975, 6 bighas 6 biswas of land was allotted to one Mr. Karamchand and the land so allotted was part of the chunk measuring 18 bighas 8 biswas of land that was allotted to Mr. Patram for temporary cultivation. Mr. Patram, thus, again approached to the Assistant Commissioner, Colonization for restoring possession of the land measuring 6 bighas 6 biswas that was under cultivation of Mr. Karamchand. The Assistant Commissioner, Colonization, thus, passed the order dated 13.09.1978 restoring possession of 6 bighas 6 biswas of land to Mr. Patram. A challenge was given to the order dated 13.09.1978 before the Revenue Appellate Authority and after getting the same rejected, before the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer. The Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer also affirmed the order 13.09.1978, thus, a petition for writ (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1015/1996, Bhajan Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) was preferred before this court. The writ (3) petition aforesaid came to be allowed vide the judgment dated 04.10.2007. Learned Single Judge while accepting the writ petition set aside the order dated 13.09.1978 and further its confirmation orders dated 12.01.1983 and 13.04.1993. The official respondents were restrained from dispossessing the petitioner from the land in question, however, a direction was given to allot a piece of land to Mr. Patram in lieu of the land allotted under the order dated 17.05.1978. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 04.10.2007, the legal representatives of Mr. Patram preferred an appeal before this court, but the same was barred by limitation from 97 days. A notice upon the application preferred as per the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act was issued by the Division Bench to the respondents on 21.08.2008. The notice so issued came to be served on Mr. Bhajan Lal on 05.09.2008. After service of notice, Mr. Bhajan Lal sold the land in question to review petitioner Mrs. Gurmeet Kaur. A necessary sale deed was executed on 01.05.2009. Prior to it, an agreement to sale was made 01.01.2009. It is also relevant to mention that as a consequent to acceptance of the writ petition, names of the legal representatives of Mr. Karamchand were entered in the mutation on 05.10.2008. It appears that Mrs. Gurmeet Kaur purchased the land concerned with bonafide belief of having title with the legal representatives of Mr. Karamchand. The special appeal (4) came up before the Division Bench for orders on an application preferred by the appellant with a prayer for not dispossessing him from the land in question and a direction was passed to maintain status quo in this regard in presence of the counsel for Mr. Bhajan Lal. Subsequent thereto on 17.07.2009, counsel for Mr. Bhajan Lal made a statement about arriving at an agreement between the parties. The matter was passed over for a day to enable counsel for respondent-petitioner Bhajan Lal to produce the compromise. On 20.07.2009, counsel for the parties stated before the court that the lis no more survives and nothing is required to be done. On the basis of the statement so given, the special appeal was disposed of in view of the compromise. After disposal of the appeal, this review petition is preferred by Mrs. Gurmeet Kaur with assertion that a valuable right accrued to her as a consequent to the sale deed executed on 01.05.2009, which as a matter of fact, is nothing but performance of the agreement to sale dated 01.01.2009. It is stated by learned counsel for the review-petitioner that a material fact has been concealed by the parties and therefore, the order disposing of the special appeal deserves to be reviewed and recalled. We do not find any merit in the argument advanced. It is the position admitted that being aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 04.10.2007, an appeal was (5) preferred before this court and the same was barred by limitation, thus, a notice was issued and the same was served upon Mr. Bhajan Lal on 05.09.2008. Mr. Bhajan Lal, thus, was having knowledge about pendency of the appeal. Irrespective of that, he sold the land and the review-petitioner Mrs. Gurmeet Kaur purchased the same despite lis pendent. Whatever right accrued to Mrs. Gurmeet Kaur, thus, is not at all a reason sufficient to review the order that was passed by relying upon the candid statements made by counsel for the parties. The review petition, therefore, is dismissed. The dismissal of this review petition in no manner shall restrict review-petitioner Mrs. Gurmeet Kaur to avail any other remedy for redressal of her grievance. [BANWARI LAL SHARMA], J.

[GOVIND MATHUR], J.

Pramod


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //