PARMESHWAR Vs. NAURANG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner/applicant assailing the legality and validity of the judgment dtd. 17/2/2020 passed by the Board of Revenue Rajasthan, Ajmer (for brevity, "the BoR") in Special Appeal/LR/2019/2504/Sikar whereby, the special appeal filed against the judgment dtd. 14/5/2019 passed by the BoR in Appeal/LR/6430/2013/Sikar affirming the judgement dtd. 28/10/2013 passed by the Court of Additional Divisonal Commissioner, Jaipur in Appeal No.71/2012 reversing the judgement dtd. 29/6/2012 passed by the Sub- divisional Officer, Sikar allowing the application filed by the petitioner/applicant under Sec. 136 of Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (for brevity, "the Act of 1956"), has been dismissed.

(2.) The facts in brief relevant for decision of the writ petition are that the petitioner filed an application under Sec. 136 of the Act of 1956 stating therein that land measuring 2 bigha 17 biswa (0.72 hect.) of the erstwhile Khasra No.342/2, Village Radhakishanpura, Tehsil and District Sikar was recorded in his khatedari; however, in the new revenue record, while carving out new Khasra No.192/1056, the area has been reduced to 0.35 hect. The application was allowed by the SDO, Sikar vide its order dtd. 29/6/2012 on the basis of report of Tehsildar dtd. 28/6/2012. An appeal preferred thereagainst by the respondents/non-applicants was allowed by the Court of Additional Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur vide its judgement dtd. 28/10/2013 which was unsuccessfully challenged by the petitioner by way of an appeal which came to be dismissed by the BoR vide its judgement dtd. 14/5/2019 and a special appeal preferred thereagainst has also been dismissed by Division Bench of the BoR vide its judgement dtd. 17/2/2020.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner, drawing attention of this Court towards the judgement dtd. 24/4/2008 passed by the Court of Sub-divisional Officer, Sikar in Revenue Suit No.80/2005 filed by him, contended that no findings on the merits of the case were recorded therein as to his rights qua the subject land which necessitated filing of an application under Sec. 136 of the Act of 1956. He submitted that since, the error, whereby, area under his khatedari was reduced while carving out a new Khasra No.192/1056, was clerical in nature, the appellate authority erred in setting aside the order dtd. 29/6/2012 passed by the SDO. Learned counsel submitted that the BoR seriously erred in recording a finding that since the dispute was beyond the scope of Sec. 136, the SDO committed illegality in entertaining the application. Referring to the provisions of Sec. 136 of the Act of 1956, learned counsel submitted that even assuming that error was not clerical in nature, if the error was noticed by a Revenue Officer in any record of rights during the course of his inspection, the same could have been corrected after serving a show cause notice to the parties as provided under proviso to the sec. . He, therefore, prayed that the writ petition be allowed, the judgement impugned be quashed and set aside and the matter may be remanded back to the SDO for decision afresh under Sec. 136. He, in support of his submission, relied upon a judgement of this Court in case of Poosa Ram Vs. The Board of Revenue and Ors.; 1995 (2) RLW 561.