Smt. Janki Devi and Another Vs. Additional Collector, Behror and Others

Smt. Janki Devi and Another vs Additional Collector, Behror and Others

Type Court Judgment Court Rajasthan Decided Jul 11, 2011

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/920414

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/920414
Court: Rajasthan High Court
Judge: Mahesh Bhagwati, J.
Decided On: Jul 11, 2011
Case Number: Case No. CW - 5934 of 2010
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Smt. Janki Devi and Another

Advocate Mr. R.K. Daga, Adv

Respondent

Additional Collector, Behror and Others

Excerpt

.....entered in the revenue record and thus, deprived him of his share. it is nowhere mentioned that the respondent no.4 was not in possession of the land, which was in his share. except the petitioners, other respondents admitted the contents of the suit in their written statement and thus, on the basis of admitted facts, as narrated in the suit, the learned trial court declared 1/5th share of respondent no.4 plaintiff in the land in question. the judgment of the learned assistant collector, behror was affirmed by both, the revenue appellate court as also board of revenue. in the present case, there was no question of seeking possession of land in question as it has not where been denied by the petitioners and other respondents that respondent no.4 was not in possession of land in his share. respondent no.4-plaintiff in-fact, filed the suit for declaration because his name was dropped from the revenue record and the petitioners along-with other respondents in connivance with the halka patwari succeeded in getting the name of respondent no.4-plaintiff dropped, whereas as per the admission of many of the respondents, the respondent no.4 had 1/5th share in the land in question. the facts of the case of mehar chand das versus lal babu siddique are altogether distinct and the judgment passed in that case is not relevant to the facts of the instant case. it is nowhere found on record that the respondent no.4 plaintiff was not in possession of the land of his share. hence, the argument that if the plaintiff is not in possession of the land in question, a suit for mere declaration is not maintainable, does not sustain. 7. there has been a concurrent finding of fact of all the three courts below and i do not find any ground to upset the pure findings of fact. 8. in view of above, the writ petition fails and the same being bereft of any merit deserves to be dismissed outrightly, which stands dismissed in limine.

Full Judgment

1. Challenge in this writ petition is to the judgments dated 7.11.2005 (Annexure-1), 24.12.2008 (Annexure-2) and 8.7.2009 (Annexure-3) rendered by the revenue courts below, which have been beseeched to be set-aside by the petitioners.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and carefully perused the impugned orders of the courts below.

3. The only crucial question emerging for consideration in the instant petition is as to whether a suit for mere declaration is maintainable if the plaintiff is not in possession of the property?

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners canvassed that the respondent no.4 was not in possession of the land-in-question and he filed merely a suit for declaration before the Court of Assistant Collector, Behror and despite that the learned Assistant Collector decreed the suit in favour of the respondent no.4. The petitioners being aggrieved with the said judgment, preferred an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Alwar, who also dismissed the appeal. The petitioners preferred second appeal before the Revenue Board and the Revenue Board also dismissed their appeal.

5. Learned counsel canvassed that the respondent no.4 filed merely a suit for declaration, whereas he was not in possession of the suit land, despite that both the appellate courts upheld the finding of the learned Assistant Collector, Behror, who decreed the suit for declaration against the petitioners. The impugned judgments passed by the revenue courts below are contrary to settled proposition of law, which deserve to be set-aside. He cited one judgment of Mehar Chand Das V/s. Lal Babu Siddique and others reported in AIR 2007 Supreme Court 1499 in support thereof.

6. A perusal of the contents of the plaint filed before the Court of Assistant Collector, Alwar, it is revealed that respondent no.4 plaintiff and the petitioner defendant Janki Devi and other respondents are all the members of one family. As per the pleadings, the respondent no.4 plaintiff had 1/5th share in 1/24th part of the land, which fell in the share of the Ruddha Ram, father of petitioner and defendants. It was alleged by the plaintiff-respondent no.4 Yad Ram that the petitioners and other respondents in connivance with the Halka Patwari eschewed the name of respondent no.4 to have been entered in the revenue record and thus, deprived him of his share. It is nowhere mentioned that the respondent no.4 was not in possession of the land, which was in his share. Except the petitioners, other respondents admitted the contents of the suit in their written statement and thus, on the basis of admitted facts, as narrated in the suit, the learned trial court declared 1/5th share of respondent no.4 plaintiff in the land in question. The judgment of the learned Assistant Collector, Behror was affirmed by both, the revenue appellate court as also Board of Revenue. In the present case, there was no question of seeking possession of land in question as it has not where been denied by the petitioners and other respondents that respondent no.4 was not in possession of land in his share. Respondent no.4-plaintiff in-fact, filed the suit for declaration because his name was dropped from the revenue record and the petitioners along-with other respondents in connivance with the Halka Patwari succeeded in getting the name of respondent no.4-plaintiff dropped, whereas as per the admission of many of the respondents, the respondent no.4 had 1/5th share in the land in question. The facts of the case of Mehar Chand Das Versus Lal Babu Siddique are altogether distinct and the judgment passed in that case is not relevant to the facts of the instant case. It is nowhere found on record that the respondent no.4 plaintiff was not in possession of the land of his share. Hence, the argument that if the plaintiff is not in possession of the land in question, a suit for mere declaration is not maintainable, does not sustain.

7. There has been a concurrent finding of fact of all the three courts below and I do not find any ground to upset the pure findings of fact.

8. In view of above, the writ petition fails and the same being bereft of any merit deserves to be dismissed outrightly, which stands dismissed in limine.

Same Court & Year Rajasthan · 2011 Same Parties Smt. Janki Devi and Another vs Additional Collector, Behror a... Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge Mahesh Bhagwati, J.