Rajasthan High Court: In an appeal against the petition dismissing the appellant’s plea against striking out his name from the revenue records without a hearing thereby adversely affecting his tenancy rights, a division bench comprising of Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, CJ., and Madan Gopal Vyas, J., set aside the Single Judge’s order and the previous orders by revenue authorities and remanded the case to the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) for a detailed enquiry considering the legal positions as clarified by the full bench of this Court in Tara v. State of Rajasthan, 2015 SCC OnLine Raj 1332.
Factual Matrix
In the instant matter, the appellant was recorded as Khatedar (tenant) of a parcel of land situated in village Narlai, Tehsil Desuri, district Pali. On 30-11-1987, the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) ordered the land to be recorded in the name of respondent 5, thereby striking off the appellant’s name which adversely affected the appellant’s tenancy rights. The appellant filed a revenue appeal against the SDO’s order, which was partly allowed on 24-06-1993. The SDO’s order was upheld, but it was stated that dispossession of the appellant required action by a competent court. The appellant’s subsequent second appeal and review were dismissed on 26-11-1998 and 04-12-2001, respectively. Subsequently, the appellant filed a petition before the High Court, which was dismissed, leading to the present appeal.
Moot Point
Whether the appellant was entitled to be recorded as Khatedar (statutory tenant) after coming into force of the Rajasthan Land Reforms & Resumption of Jagir Act, 1952 (the Act) and resumption of Jagir?
Parties’ Contentions
The appellant contended that the SDO did not afford the appellant an opportunity to be heard before altering the revenue records, violating natural justice and procedural requirements under the Land Revenue Act. It was contended that the appellant, as a tenant cultivating the land, should have acquired Khatedari rights after the enactment of the Act.
However, the respondents stated that although the SDO may not have provided notice to the appellant, the appellant was cultivating the land on behalf of the deity, not as an independent tenant. It was contended that the revenue and appellate courts, as well as the Single Judge of this Court, consistently ruled in favor of the respondents, asserting that the appellant’s cultivation was for the deity’s benefit.
Court’s Analysis
The Court noted that “the Hindu idol (deity) could only hold such lands in Jagir, which Shebait/Pujari was cultivating for such deity, having direct nexus with the agricultural operations either themselves or through hired labour or servant engaged by them so as to claim to be Khudkasht and to be protected from resumption/acquisition under the Jagirs Act of 1952.” The Court referred to Tara (Supra), where the full bench of this Court clarified that lands held by a Hindu idol (deity) and cultivated by tenants for a deity, rather than by the deity’s Shebait/Pujari or hired labour, would result in Khatedari rights vesting with the tenants after the resumption of Jagirs under the Act. But, on the other hand, if it is found that the he was cultivating the land not as a tenant but either he himself was Shebait or Pujari or a labour hired by them or a person employed by them, then, he would not be entitled to be recorded as Khatedar upon resumption of Jagir under the Act. The Court noted that the previous orders were passed before Tara (Supra), and did not consider this legal position, therefore, a fresh enquiry was necessary to determine the appellant’s status.
Court’s Decision
The Court held that appellant’s status as a Khatedar needed re-examination in the light of the full bench of this Court’s decision in Tara (Supra). The Court set aside the SDO’s order, and subsequent appellate decisions and remanded back the case to the SDO for a fresh enquiry considering the legal position established by the full bench of this Court within four months. The Court directed the parties to appear before the SDO on 05-08-2024.
[Joga Ram v. Board of Revenue of Rajasthan, 2024 SCC OnLine Raj 2013, Decided on 03-07-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. J.L. Purohit, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Shashank Joshi and Mr. R.S. Bohra, Counsel for the Appellant
Mr. SS Ladrecha, AAG, Mr. Kshitij Vyas and Mr. Deepak Suthar, Counsel for the Respondents
