NEERABAI Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is on behalf of Smt. Neerabai wife of Jakalu and Kumari Chunasari daughter of Jakalu seeking relief of quashing the order dated 31-12-1988, passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bemetara, order dated 11-7-1989, passed by the Additional Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur and the order dated 27-12-1990, passed by the Board of Revenue, Madhya Pradesh.This petition is accompanied by an affidavit, which is the requirement under the Rules of the Court, but the affidavit so filed is not by the petitioners. It is by one Jokhan Singh who has described himself as father of petitioner No. 1 Smt. Neerabai. This affidavit, as required under the Rules of the Court, is not by the petitioners and it has not been stated that the affidavit filed by Jhokan Singh is founded on any authority under any power of Attorney.The petition is heard as it involves no controversy relating to the facts or the legal proposition founded on controvertial position in regard to the facts.

(2.) Both the petitioners lived separately from Jakalu on account of strained relationship and family was involved in civil and criminal litigations against each other, which was damaging the tie of the family leading to the strained relationship and with a view to promote cordial relationship and to bring happiness in the family, well wishers and relations by taking lead brought about a settlement by means of an agreement dated 2-5-1981 for bringing to end all the disputes. The agreement dated 2-5-1981 was between Neerabai with Ku. Chunasari on one side and Jakalu and 5 family relations i.e. Bhukhau, Beniram, Vishal, Behattar and Mahendra on the other side, who played a significant role in bringing out the agreement or in bringing all of them to point of agreement and they went even to the extent of giving their lands to Smt. Neerabai and Ku. Chunasari for limited purpose for earning their livelihood conditioning the agreement that Smt. Neerabai will earn her livelihood and her limited interest was to the extent so long she continued to be the wife of Jakalu and so long she survives and the right to earn livelihood was made available to Ku. Chunsari only up to celebration of her marriage.

(3.) On the basis of the aforesaid agreement, the present petitioners moved the Tahsildar Bemetara for mutation of their names u/S. 110 of the M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for brevity hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') as Bhooswami over following Khasra numbers :- Khasra No. Area71.25 acre25/20.53 acre21.78 acre25/30.52 acre312.10 acre25/10.18 acre1391.30 acre1401.42 acre148/1, 148/2, 148/3, 148/64.51 acre35/3,0.68 acre35/40.44 acre38/21.30 acre640.05 acre1290.76 acre137/20.28 acre20/70.75 acreThe case was registered as 31-A/6/87-88. Before the Tahsildar all the 6 persons to the agreement whose land was given to the petitioners by way of maintenance were not made party. Only Jakalu, Bhukhau and Beniram were made parties. The Tahsildar on 12-10-88 passed an order under Sections 109 and 110 of the Code for mutation of names of the applicants i.e. present petitioners as Bhooswami. This order was appealed against u/S. 14 of the Code before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bemetara and the appeal was registered as Appeal No. 12-A/6/87-88 which was allowed vide order dated 31-12-1988 and the order of the Tahsildar for mutation was set aside. Against this order Smt. Neerabai and Ku. Chunasari preferred second appeal against Jakalu, Bhukhau, Beniram, Vishal and Behattar which was registered as Revenue Appeal No. 238/A-6/88-89 and was decided by the Additional Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur vide order dated 11th July, 1989. This second appeal was dismissed with the directions that petitioners names may be recorded in the record of rights over Khasra No. 20/7, area 0.75 decimal belonging to Jakalu. This order of the Additional Commissioner was challenged before the Board of Revenue by the present petitioners by means of Revision No. 232-I/89 which was dismissed by the Board of Revenue on 27th December, 1990. Jakalu did not file any revision against the order of the Additional Commissioner passed in Appeal No. 238/A-6/88-89 directing mutation of the names of the petitioners over his land Khasra No. 20/7, area 0.75 acre.