GANESH Vs. NANU SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the judgment of the Sub Divisional Officer, Khetri, dated 22. 6. 60, in the matter of correction of entries in Khasra Girdawari for St. years 2013 and 2014. The respondent preferred an application under Section 136 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act 1956 for the correction of entry against Khasra numbers 713 and 837 (converted into Khasra numbers 810 and 912 or 922?) of village Badhwar on the ground that the mother of Bhuriya, in whose name the land had been entered in the Settlement by mistake, had transferred, in St. 2004, the parcha Khatauni as well as the fields to them realising that mistake; and that ever since then they had been cultivating these fields and had also cultivated them in St. years 2013 and 2014; but that the appellant in collusion with the Patwari had got both these fields entered in his name in St. 2013 and field No. 912 alone in St 2014, which came to the knowledge of the respondents when they took a copy of the Khasra Girdawari ; and that therefore the entries made be corrected and the name of the respondents be entered against these Khasra numbers. The appellant contested this application and denied all the allegations. He further contended that both these fields were in the cultivatory possession of the appellant, that it was he who cultivated both these fields in St. 2013 himself and fields No. 912 (or 922) in St. 2014 leaving Khasra numbers. 801 parat during that year. One of Khasra numbers is shown as Khasra number 912 in para number 1 of the application, but as Khasra number|922 in para number 4 of the application. In the written reply preferred by the appellant, the Khasra number is shown as number 922. In the issues framed the Khasra number is shown as number 912. In the judgment the Khasra number is mentioned both as Khasra number 912 and 922. But in the operative portion thereof the reference is to Khasra number 922. There is no other record from which it can be verified as to what Khasra number (912 or 922) the dispute related. Neither the pleadings, nor the judgment, indicate what rights were in dispute and were being decided by the learned Sub Divisional Officer-whether the rights as tenant or those of a Sub-tenant.

(2.) A perusal of rr. 74 and 75 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Land Records) Rules 1957 will go to show, so far as they are relevant for the purposes of the present case, that it is only the name of the tenant or a sub-tenant that can be entered in column number 6 of Khasra Girdawari. Unless, therefore, it was clear as to what right the respondents were claiming and in what capacity they wanted their names to be entered in the Khasra Girdawari and the learned Sub-Divisional Officer also gave a clear decision on this point, the case could not be said to have been decided properly. This question becomes all the more pertinent in the present case because the appellant claims his right over the land through a purchase from Lachhman, son of Bhuriya, the admittedly recorded Khatedar of the disputed land in the settlement of Smt. 1999 which was to remain in force uptill Smt. 2008; and because the respondents-claim their possession through a transfer from the mother of Bhuriya who is the same person as referred to above. It is also in the statement of Lachhman, produced as a witness by the appellant himself, that his father being in Military service the land had been given for cultivation temporarily to the respondents. A decision, therefore, has to be first taken in this case as to what is the right or title (that of a tenant or of a sub-tenant) of the respondents and with what status they want to have their names entered in the Khasara Girdawari. Along with this a decision has to be taken about the right and title of the appellant himself who is a transferee from the son of the admittedly recorded Khatedar Bhuriya.