HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR

D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1154/2019

In

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2102/2007

Bajranglal Agarwal S/o Shri Chhajuram Choudhary, Aged About
69 Years, aged 69 years, R/o Samod, Presently R/o C-10,
Choudhary House, Sawai Jai Singh Highway, Banipark, Jaipur
—-Appellant-Petitioner
Versus
1. Board Of Revenue, Ajmer
2. The Settlement Commissioner, Jaipur
3. The Settlement Officer, Jaipur
4. The Assistant Settlement Officer, Chomu
5. Shyam Sunder Bhatra S/o Shri Nathmal Bhatra, R/o
Chomu District Jaipur Since Deceased Through His Legal
Heirs
5/1 Kamal Sharma S/o Late Shyam Sunder Bhatra,
Resident Of Near Bandha Ringus Road, Chomu District
Jaipur
5/2 Samptti D/o Late Shri Shyam Sunder Bhatra W/o Shri
Pawan Kumar Sharma, Resident Of Near Bandha Ringus
Road, Chomu District Jaipur
5/3 Snehlata D/o Shri Shyam Sunder Bhatra W/o Shri
Harihar, Resident Of Near Bandha Ringus Road, Chomu
District Jaipur
5/4 Ansu @ Meena D/o Late Shri Shyam Sunder Bhatra,
Resident Of Near Bandha Ringus Road, Chomu District
Jaipur

5/5 Vijay Kumar Sharma S/o Late Shri Shyam Sunder
Bhatra,
All residents of Near Bandha Ringus Road, Chomu District
Jaipur
6. Kabbu Lal S/o Shri Raghuvar Dayal, By Caste Nai (Since
Deceased) Through His Legal Heir
6/1 Smt. Vimla Devi W/o Kabbulal,
6/2 Kiram Devi W/o Vikram D/o Kabbulal,

(Downloaded on 30/09/2019 at 09:11:13 PM)
(2 of 18) [SAW-1154/2019]

6/3 Jyoti D/o Kabbulal,
6/4 Kamal D/o Kabbu Lal,
All residents of Village Chomu District Ajitpura @ Baseda
Tehsil Niwai District Tonk
Respondents/Non-petitioners

7. Prakash Chand S/o Ram Chandra, By Caste Jangid R/o
Chomu Tehsil Chomu District Jaipur

8. Ramesh Chand S/o Ram Chandra, (Since Deceased)
Through His Legal Heirs
8/1 Smt. Lalita W/o Late Ramesh Chand,
8/2 Gajanand S/o Late Ramesh Chand,
8/3 Himanshu S/o Late Ramesh Chand,
8/4 Rohit Kumar S/o Late Ramesh Chand,
8/5 Seema D/o Late Ramesh Chand,

9. Rameshwar S/o Ramchandra,

10. Rajendra S/o Ram Chandra, (Since Deceased) through His
Legal Heirs
10/1 Rajiv S/o Late Rajendra,
10/2 Ajay S/o Late Rajendra,
10/3 Renu D/o Late Rajendra,
10/4 Madhu D/o Late Rajendra,
10/5 Sonu D/o Late Rajendra,
All By Caste Jangid R/o Chomu Tehsil Chomu District
Jaipur

11. Smt. Anju Devi W/o Shri Puran, By Caste Jangid Brahmin,
R/o Chomu Tehsil Chomu District Jaipur

12. Nicky,

13. Vicky,

14. Guddu,
All minor through natural guardian and mother Smt. Anju
Devi W/o Shri Puran R/o Chomu Tehsil Chomu District
Jaipur

15. State Of Rajasthan Through Tehsildar, Chomu District
Jaipur
Proforma Respondent

16. Dwarkia Prasad Sharma S/o Shri Damodar Prasad
Sharma, By Caste Bagra Brahmin, R/o Village Daulatpura
Kota Tehsil Ajmer District Jaipur

(Downloaded on 30/09/2019 at 09:11:13 PM)
(3 of 18) [SAW-1154/2019]

—-Respondent/Non Petitioner

For Appellant(s) : Shri Satya Narayan Kumawat
For Respondent(s) : Shri Rajendra Prasad, Sr. Advocate
assisted by Shri Pawan Pareek, Shri
Raghvendra Singh, Shri Karan
Tiberwal and Shri Deepak Sharma

HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH GUPTA

Judgment

25/09/2019

(PER HON’BLE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ, J.)

The present appeal has been filed by the appellant assailing

the judgement of the learned Single Judge dated 12.7.2019, by

which the writ petition filed by him has been dismissed.

The appellant in the aforesaid writ petition has challenged

the judgement of the Board of Revenue dated 28.2.2006 by which

the revision petition filed by respondent no.5-Shyam Sunder

Bhatra was allowed and he was declared khatedar of the land

comprising in khasra no.1919/1/2 measuring 1 bigha 3 biswa

situated in village Chomu, District Jaipur.

Facts giving rise to this appeal are that one Kanhaiyalal S/o

Balu was recorded as khatedar of the land bearing old khasra

no.1919/1 measuring 1 bigha 2 biswa situated in village Chomu,

District Jaipur. The State Government issued a notification u/s.4 of

the SectionLand Acquisition Act, 1953 for acquiring 32 bigha 11 biswa

land including land of khasra no.1919/1 to install 132 KV gird sub-

station at Chomu. While the acquisition proceedings under

process, the said khatedar Kanhaiyalal died leaving behind his

widow Smt. Narayani Devi and son Kabbulal. The land was

(Downloaded on 30/09/2019 at 09:11:13 PM)
(4 of 18) [SAW-1154/2019]

therefore mutated in their name. In the meantime, Smt. Narayan

Devi sold the said land to Shyam Sunder Bhatra by registered sale

deed dated 12.9.1973. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded

compensation to the tune of Rs.1039.50 for acquiring land of

khasra no.1919/1 and issued notice to Smt. Narayani Devi to

receive the same, who filed an application before him stating that

she has sold the land to Shyam Sunder Bhatra, it should be paid

to him. In the meantime, an application was moved before the

Assistant Settlement Officer, Chomu on 21.3.1990 for correction of

entries in respect of khasra no.1919/1 by the appellant-Bajrang

Lal Agarwal and Meena Lal Agarwal on the premise that the

boundaries of previous khasra no.1912/2 was touching the road

from Chomu to Morija. They purchased the land from Rudalal Jogi

by registered sale deed. The present khasra numbers of that land

was 3849, 3851, 3852 and 3853. This land had wrongly been

entered in the khata of Ram Chandra and Mohan Lal and in fact

belonged to them. It was also mentioned that Ram Chandra and

others have filed a civil suit in this regard in the Court of

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chomu, which is pending. The

Assistant Settlement Officer allowed the application by order dated

28.4.1990 and directed that aforesaid land of present khasra

no.3849 area 0.11 hectares, 3851 area 0.02 hectares, 3852 area

0.08 hectares and 3856 area 0.08 hectares, total area 0.29

hectares be recorded in the name of Government and also

directed that the land of khasra no.3849, 3851 and 3852, total

area 0.6 hectares be reduced and entered in the khatedari of

aforesaid applicants.

Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Assistant Settlement

Officer dated 28.4.1990, Shri Shyam Sunder Bhatra-respondent

(Downloaded on 30/09/2019 at 09:11:13 PM)
(5 of 18) [SAW-1154/2019]

no.5, filed appeal before the Settlement Officer, Jaipur on the

premise that Assistant Settlement Officer neither issued any

notice, nor gave opportunity of hearing to him before passing the

aforesaid order. It was also stated in the application that some

part of the Chomu to Morija road falling in northern side in khasra

no.1919/1 and some part in southern side was left free. This land

was never acquired, nor surrendered in favour of the government.

Another part of the disputed land on the southern side of the road

was comprising in khasra nos.6756, 6761, 6764, 6765, 6766,

6767, 6783 and 6761/7355. These lands were entered in favour of

the appellant-Bajrang Lal Agarwal and others and lands of

northern side of the road were comprising in new khasra

nos.3849, 3851, 3852, 3853, which were covered by the road and

were ordered to be recorded in the name of the government. The

prayer was made that the order dated 28.4.1990 be set aside and

a parcha be issued in favour of Shyam Sunder Bhatra. The

Settlement Officer by order dated 30.01.1991 allowed the appeal

and remanded the matter to Assistant Settlement Officer, Chomu.

The Assistant Settlement Officer, Chomu after remand,

examined the record and directed the Tehsildar to inspect the site

and submit the inspection report. On examination of report of

inspection, statement of neighbours and other records, the

Tehsildar found that land of old khasra no.1919/1/2 belongs to

Shyam Sunder and other neighbours. He also held that present

khasra nos.3849, 3851, 3852 and 3856, total area 0.29 hectares

were not in road boundary and therefore should be restored back

in the khatedari of Shyam Sunder Bhatra and accordingly

corrections be made in the jamabandi. Aggrieved by that order

of the Assistant Settlement Officer dated 27.02.1991, Prakash

(Downloaded on 30/09/2019 at 09:11:13 PM)
(6 of 18) [SAW-1154/2019]

Chandra son of Ram Chandra filed appeal before the Settlement

Officer, Jaipur. The Settlement Officer heard the arguments and

decided the appeal ex-parte in favour of Prakash Chandra and

others thereby setting aside the order of Assistant Settlement

Officer, Chomu dated 27.2.1991 and directed that the lands of

khasra nos.3849, 3851, 3852 and 3856 total measuring 0.29

hectares should be restored back to the khata of Prakash Chandra

etc.

It may be significant to note at this stage that the appellant-

Bajrang Lal and others did not file any appeal or revision petition

against the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer dated

28.04.1990 and appeal was filed only by Prakash Chandra and

others. Shyam Sunder Bhatra aggrieved by the order dated

13.11.1995 filed further appeal before the Settlement

Commissioner, Jaipur, which was dismissed by order dated

24.3.2003. During the pendency of the aforesaid appeal, Bajrang

Lal, the present appellant, filed an application under Order 1 Rule

10 CPC for his impleadment as party. The Settlement

Commissioner vide order dated 24.3.2003 dismissed the appeal.

Aggrieved thereby, the respondent-Shyam Sunder Bhatra filed

revision petition before the Board of Revenue, which was also

dismissed by order dated 7.12.2004. It was thereafter that the

respondent no.2-Shyam Sunder Bhatra filed review petition before

the Board of Revenue. The Board by order dated 28.2.2006

allowed the review petition. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant

Bajrang Lal Agarwal filed special appeal with an application under

Section 10 of the Land Revenue Act seeking leave to file appeal

before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue, Ajmer by

order dated 7.2.2007 dismissed the application on the ground that

(Downloaded on 30/09/2019 at 09:11:13 PM)
(7 of 18) [SAW-1154/2019]

no appeal lies under Section 10 of the Land Revenue Act against

the decision of the Single Bench of the Board in the review

petition. It is thereafter that he filed the writ petition, which was

dismissed by the impugned order.

Shri Satya Narayan Kumawat, learned counsel for the

appellant has argued that the learned Single Judge has failed to

appreciate that the impugned judgment dated 28.2.2006 and

7.2.2007 passed in Review Petition No.92/2005 and application for

leave to special appeal under Section 10 of Land Revenue Act

against the judgement of learned Single Member of the Board of

Revenue Ajmer are perse illegal, arbitrary, perverse, contrary to

the provisions of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC read with Section 86 of the

Land Revenue Act 1956. They have been passed against the

material available on record and are not sustainable in the eye of

law. They are therefore liable to be quashed and set aside and

consequent thereto, the judgment passed by the Board of

Revenue in Revision Petition No.30/2003, dated 7.12.2004 and

dated 24.3.2003 passed by the Settlement Commissioner and

dated 23.11.95 passed by the S.O Jaipur are liable to be upheld.

Learned counsel for the appellant further argued that the

learned Single Judge has most seriously erred in having failed to

consider that against the judgment dated 7.12.2004 passed by

Shri Rajeev Swaroop, the Member of Board of Revenue, the

respondent No.5 preferred a review petition before the Board, as

Mr. Rajeev Swaroop was transferred, the sitting Member Mr. N.K.

Jain after hearing the Review Petition allowed the same and set

aside the order passed by the Board in revision petition. The

Board committed gross error of law in not re-hearing the original

revision on its merits. The Division Bench of the Hon’ble High

(Downloaded on 30/09/2019 at 09:11:13 PM)
(8 of 18) [SAW-1154/2019]

Court in the case of Maji Mohan Kanwar and others versus the

State of Rajasthan and Ors.AIR 1967 Raj 264 has held that Scheme

of Order 47 CPC provides three stages for hearing after a review

application is placed before the Judge or Judges under sub-Rule

(1) of Rule 4. At that stage, if the Court is satisfied that one or

more of the grounds detailed in Rule 1 is prima facie made out, it

should order that notice to be issued to the opposite party to

enable him to appear and be heard in support of judgment or

order whose review is applied for. At that stage, if the Court

comes to the conclusion that the application for review should be

granted, then the third stage is reached under Rule 8 after the

original case is registered and the court re-hears it on merits.

After re-hearing the original case, it may either result in reversal

or variation in the former judgment, decree or order.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned

Single Judge has failed to consider that the learned Board of

Revenue further grossly erred in setting up entirely a new case at

the stage of Review Petition and observing that from the revenue

record, Khatedari of Shyam Sunder Bhatra in respect of Khasra

No.1919/1/2 is proved and the same was not acquired by the

RSEB for installation of 132 KV Grid Sub-Station at Chomu vide

Gazette Notification dated 28.11.1970. Since no such ground is

available for assuming that Khasra No.1919/1/2 has been wrongly

recorded instead of Khasra No.1919/1 and the fact in dispute is

proved from the entries of Mutation No.1296, the learned Single

Member of Board grossly erred in placing reliance on entries made

in Mutation No.1296. Since the mutation is a fiscal proceeding and

does not confer any right, title or interest in favour of person

(Downloaded on 30/09/2019 at 09:11:13 PM)
(9 of 18) [SAW-1154/2019]

whose name is shown in the mutation, this practice and approach

so adopted by the learned Board is perse illegal, arbitrary and

therefore is liable to be quashed and set aside in supervisory

jurisdiction of this Court under SectionArticle 226 of the Constitution of

India.

Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned

Single Judge has failed to consider that the Board of Revenue

further grossly erred in not taking into consideration that the

Settlement Commissioner, Jaipur in its detailed judgment dated

24.3.2003 while dismissing the second appeal observed that the

land bearing Khasra No.1919/1/2 did not exist on the date of its

acquisition in the year 1970-71. Therefore, the purported sale

deed dated 12.9.1973 (i.e. sale made after issuance of notification

under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act) is ab-initio void and

the delineation of separate Khasra No.1919/1/2 measuring 1

Bigha 3 Biswa was cancelled with the direction that this land be

merged with the old Khasra No.1919/1 and also directed to cancel

the mutation No.641 dated 28.2.1974 sanctioned on the basis of

ab-initio void sale deed dated 12.9.1973 and accordingly the

Settlement Commissioner Jaipur has quashed the orders of the

Lower Courts dated 27.2.1991, 30.1.1991 and 13.11.1995.

Learned counsel for the appellant argued that learned Single

Judge as well as learned Board of Revenue has ignored this vital

aspect of the case that the Settlement Commissioner Jaipur has

while exercising its appellate jurisdiction has on the basis of

pleading and evidence held that the appellant Shyam Sunder

Bhatra could not prove that the deceased Kanhiaylalal S/o Balu

held more than 1 Bigha 3 Biswa land. This land stands acquired

(Downloaded on 30/09/2019 at 09:11:13 PM)
(10 of 18) [SAW-1154/2019]

but the appellant under collusion with the revenue department

wrongly got the said land recorded in the name of Kanhaiyalal S/o

Balu in Khasra No.1919/1/2. The boundaries of the land as

mentioned in the registered sale deed dated 12.9.1973 do not

tally. The Court in para No.6 to 12 of the judgment in detail has

held that the sale deed is in respect of the land, which is not in

existence, therefore, it is ab-initio void.

Shri Rajendra Prasad, learned senior counsel for the

respondents has opposed the appeal and submitted that the

notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1983 for

acquiring the land of khasra no.1919/1 measuring 1 bigha and 3

biswas was issued on 24.2.1970. Possession of the land was taken

over on 13.1.1971 by Municipal Board. The award for payment of

compensation was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on

31.1.1974. The appellant-Bajrang Lal Agarwal purchased the land

measuring 32 bighas and 11 biswas much thereafter on

11.1.1982. The Settlement Officer therefore did not have any

power to amend the notification of acquisition. The respondent

no.5-Shyam Sundar Bhatra purchased the land measuring 1 bigha

and 3 biswas of khasra no.1919/1/2. Khasra nos.1919/1, of which

land was acquired and the land of khasra no.1919/1/2, which was

purchased by respondent no.3 were both different lands and

therefore were separately numbered, much prior to the acquisition

proceedings. As per the Milan Khasra prepared at the time of

subsequent survey by the Settlement Department, the new khasra

nos.3849, 3851, 3852 and 3856 were given to the land of khasra

no.1919/1/2, which is placed on record as Annexure-R-5/1. Shri

Rajeev Swaroop, learned the then Member of the Board of

(Downloaded on 30/09/2019 at 09:11:13 PM)
(11 of 18) [SAW-1154/2019]

Revenue by its judgement dated 7.12.2004 incorrectly held that

khasra no.1919/1 was mentioned in the notification instead of

khasra no.1919/1/2 by mistake. When original khasra no.1919/1

was mentioned in the notification under Section 4 of the Land

Acquisition Act, no correction of that number could be made at the

level of settlement authority. The notification for acquisition under

Section 4 was issued on 24.2.1970, possession of the land was

taken over on 13.1.1971 and the award was passed on 31.1.1974.

If any mistake had actually crept in the notification issued by the

State, it could be corrected by the State Government only and

that too during acquisition proceedings. Reliance is placed on the

judgement of the Supreme Court in Ram Kishan Jaiswal vs. Indian

Institute of Technology-(2004) 13 SCC 412 and SectionD.D.A. vs. Samay

Singh-(2005) 13 SCC 682.

Shri Rajendra Prasad, learned senior counsel has argued that

Settlement Commissioner as well as Single Member of the Board

of Revenue Shri Rajeev Swaroop incorrectly and without

jurisdiction interfered with acquisition notification after it became

final. Since the judgement passed by the learned Single Member

of the Board suffers from error apparent on the face of the record,

the review petition was filed by respondent no.5 emphatically

agitating the issue that khasra no.1919/1/2 was not subject

matter of acquisition. Learned Member of the Board of Revenue in

the review petition required Tehsildar, Chomu to submit complete

report with regard to khasra no.1919/1/2. The Tehsildar, Chomu

vide his letter dated 5.7.2002 submitted the report dated

9.7.2002 stating that the land of khasra no.1919/1/2 measuring 1

bigha 3 biswas was in the jamabandi of Svt. 2039-42 recorded in

(Downloaded on 30/09/2019 at 09:11:13 PM)
(12 of 18) [SAW-1154/2019]

the khata of Shyam Sundar S/o Nathmal Bhagra and that the

present khasra number of this land was 3849/0.11, 3851/0.02,

3852/0.08 and 3856/0.08, total measuring 4 rakba 0.29 hectares.

The learned Board of Revenue has rightly allowed the review

petition so as to correct the aforesaid error apparent on the face

of record by learned Single Member vide order dated 7.12.2004.

Shri Rajendra Prasad, learned senior counsel submits that

the appellant started interfering with the peaceful possession of

respondent no.5. He filed a suit for permanent injunction in the

Court of SDO, Chomu, which was decided vide judgement dated

27.10.2005, but the appellant was still interfering with the

peaceful possession of respondent no.5. The suit was decreed in

favour of respondent no.5 by issue of permanent injunction. In

fact, he filed an application for treating khasra no.1919/1/2 in

place of khasra no.1919/1. The finding recorded by the learned

Member of the Board Shri Rajeev Swaroop that the land of khasra

no.1919/1 could be treated as the land of khasra no.1919/1, had

no basis. It is contended that once the land is acquired and

possession is taken, it absolutely vests with the State Government

from all encumbrances as provided under Section 16 of the Act.

After passing of the award and taking over of possession, the land

was recorded in the name of RSEB, much before the proceedings

before Assistant Settlement Officer or Settlement Commissioner or

Board of Revenue. The learned Member Shri Rajeev Swaroop was

wholly unjustified in holding that the khasra no.1919/1/2 was by

typing mistake written as 1919/1. Another Member of the Board

Shri N.K. Jain, therefore, rightly held that on perusal of jamabandi

of Svt.2019, the land of khasra no.1919/1/2 measuring 1 bigha

(Downloaded on 30/09/2019 at 09:11:13 PM)
(13 of 18) [SAW-1154/2019]

and 3 biswas was recorded in the name of Kanhaiyalal S/o Balu.

The corresponding year of Svt.2019 is 1961-62, which was much

prior to starting acquisition proceedings. It cannot therefore be

said to be a case of clerical mistake. After acquisition proceedings

and the acquisition having attained finality, description of the land

cannot be changed in the name of so-called typing mistake. The

proceedings before the Land Acquisition Officer for correction of

mistake, being summary in nature, the appellant had remedy of

suit under Section 125 of the Land Revenue Act, which he did not

avail. In fact, a suit filed at the instance of Ram Chandra and

others is pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate.

The order passed by the learned Board of Revenue in review

petition is therefore perfectly just and legal and does not require

any interference.

It is argued that the land of khasra no.1919/1/2 was existing

even prior to enforcement of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and much

prior to the acquisition proceedings, which is evident from

jamabandi khatauni of Svt. 2010 to 2023 and entry in khasra

girdawari of Svt. 2016 to 2018 and 2029-2031. The copy of

khasra milan kshetraphal of the land of old khasra no.1912/2

indicates that now after settlement, the new khasra nos.3855,

3854, 3848, 3850, 3853 and 3849/7487, 3852/7489 and

3851/7488 belongs to appellant. The jamabandi of Svt. 2057 to

2060 indicates that the land of khasra no.3849, 3851, 3852 and

3856 are recorded in the name of Shyam Sunder Bhatra. The

report of Tehsildar indicates that land of old khasra no.1919/1/2

was never acquired in the name of acquisition proceedings for

RSEB. The disputed land is situated near the boundary of RSEB

(Downloaded on 30/09/2019 at 09:11:13 PM)
(14 of 18) [SAW-1154/2019]

from north side and as per the revenue records and witnesses,

this land belongs to Shyam Sunder Bhatra. It is therefore that the

impugned order is perfectly just and legal and does not call for

interference by this Court, therefore, the appeal be dismissed.

We have given our anxious consideration to the rival

submissions and perused the material on record.

The learned Single Member of the Revenue Board in the

review petition examined the question whether the land of khasra

no.1919/1/2 was independently entered in the revenue records or

it was part of the land of khasra no.1919/1. On perusal of the

jamabandi of Svt.2019, the Board concluded that the khasra

no.1919/1/2 measuring 1 bigha and 3 biswas was recorded in the

name of Kanhaiyalal S/o Balu. Thereafter, the land was purchased

by the review petitioners from the legal heirs of Kanhaiyalal by

registered sale deed dated 12.9.1973 and mutated in their favour

vide mutation no.641 from 28.2.1974. The jamabandi of Svt.2039

to 2042 recorded this land in favour of Shyam Sunder Bhatra. The

report of the Tehsildar dated 18.5.2000 also confirmed that the

land of khasra no.1919/1/2 measuring 1 bigha and 3 biswas was

recorded in the name of review petitioners and the new khasra

numbers thereof were 3849 area 0.11 hectares, 3851 area 0.02

hectares, 3852 area 0.08 hectares and 3856 area 0.08 hectares.

It is proved that the former khasra no.1919/1/2 was now entered

as khasra nos.3849, 3851, 3852 and 3856 and that the former

khasra no.1919/1 was separately in existence and was shown in

different 10 numbers. The learned Board of Revenue therefore

concluded that it is clear from the revenue records that khasra

no.1919/1/2 min and khasra no.1919/1 min were two separate

(Downloaded on 30/09/2019 at 09:11:13 PM)
(15 of 18) [SAW-1154/2019]

and independent khasra numbers. The fact that in revenue map,

land of khasra no.1919/1/2 was not separately indicated, does not

mean that this was not an independent khasra and was part of

land of khasra no.1919/1. The learned Board of Revenue referred

to the `girdavari’ of Svt.2024 to 2026 and `jamabandi’ of

Svt.2019, in which khasra no.1919/1/2 measuring 1 bigha and 3

biswas was separately shown in the name of khatedar Kanhaiyalal

S/o Balu and khasra no.1919/1 measuring 8 bighas and 8 biswas

in the name of Ram Kishore, Anandi Lal Jodha, Balabux

Vidhyadhar, Jagdish, Gheesa Lal B/c Brahmin as his khatedars.

The notification u/s. 4 of the SectionLand Acquisition Act was issued on

27.11.1970 to acquire land of khasra no.1919/1, measuring 1

bigha and 3 biswas for setting up 132 KV grid Sub-station, Chomu

in favour of the RSEB, whereas the land of khasra no.1919/1/2

recorded in the name of review petitioners was of different

number. Mutation no.1296 indicated that the total rakba of khasra

no.1919 was 8 bighas and 8 biswas, out of which, 1 bigha and 3

biswas was mutated in favour of RSEB for 132 KV grid Sub-station

and remaining 7 bighas and 5 biswas continued to be recorded in

the name of Mohanlal etc. On this basis, the learned Board of

Revenue has concluded that the stand of the appellant herein that

land of khasra no.1919/1/2 was acquired for setting up of 132 KV

grid Sub-station, was not proved.

The learned Board of Revenue in the order accepting the

review petition has further held that there was no basis of the

finding recorded by the Settlement Officer in his order dated

24.3.2003 that khasra no.1919/1 was mentioned in the

notification of acquisition of RSEB due to typographical error and,

(Downloaded on 30/09/2019 at 09:11:13 PM)
(16 of 18) [SAW-1154/2019]

in fact, it should have been 1919/1/2. The Board concluded that

the Settlement Officer assumed this on the basis of the fact that in

the revenue map, land of khasra no.1919/1/2 was not separately

indicated, whereas in the revenue records and the report of the

Tehsildar, it was clearly indicated separately and also that the land

of khasra no.1919/1 measuring 1 bigha and 3 biswas was

acquired for setting up of 132 KV grid Sub-station of RSEB and

that the land of khasra no.1919/1/2 was never acquired and it

was in existence independently. The Board therefore concluded

that the Settlement Commissioner without any basis merely on

assumption or inference that the acquisition of the land of khasra

no.1919/1 was result of typographical error and, in fact, the land

of khasra no.1919/1/2 should have been indicated which by

mistake was indicated as khasra no.1919/1 and the learned Single

Member of the Revenue Board Shri Rajeev Swaroop accepted that

assumption as correct and wrongly rejected the revision petition,

which amounted to error apparent on the face of record because

the land of khasra no.1919/1/2 was neither acquired, nor was

there any basis for arriving at the conclusion that the acquisition

of the land of khasra no.1919/1 was result of typographical error.

In fact, the land of khasra no.1919/1/2 was expected to be

acquired. This was substantiated from the fact that while total

rakba of the land measuring 1919 was 8 bighas and 8 biswas, out

of which after acquisition of 1 bigha and 3 biswas for 132 KV grid

Sub-station, the remaining rakba of 7 bighas and 5 biswas was

continued to be recorded in the name of khatedars as evident

from mutation number 1296.

(Downloaded on 30/09/2019 at 09:11:13 PM)

(17 of 18) [SAW-1154/2019]

In our considered view, the learned Single Judge in the

impugned order relying on various judgements of the Supreme

Court viz. SectionWaryam Singh vs. Amarnath-AIR 1954 SC 215,

SectionBathutmal Raichand Oswal vs. Laxmibai R. Tarta-(1975) 1 SCC

858 and SectionNagendra Nath Bora vs. Commissioner of Hills Divisions-

AIR 1958 SC 398, has rightly held that the power of

superintendence conferred on this Court under SectionArticle 227 of the

Constitution of India being extraordinary was to be exercised most

sparingly and only in appropriate cases. This Court while

exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 interfere with the findings

of fact recorded by the subordinate court or Tribunal functioned

within the limits of its authority and that it could not correct mere

errors of fact by examining the evidence or re-appreciating it.

Powers of judicial interference under SectionArticle 227 of the

Constitution with orders of judicial or quasi-judicial nature, are not

greater than the powers under SectionArticle 226 of the Constitution.

Under SectionArticle 226, the power of interference may extend to

quashing an impugned order on the ground of a mistake apparent

on the face of record. But under SectionArticle 227 of the Constitution,

the power of interference is limited to seeing that the Tribunal

functions within the limits of its authority.

On perusal of the order of the Board of Revenue passed in

the review petition, we are inclined to uphold the contention that

the learned Board of Revenue, when originally dismissed the

revision petition, merely upheld the order of Settlement

Commissioner considering the reasoning given by him that the

inclusion of the land of khasra no.1919/1 in the notification of

acquisition and the award of land acquisition was result of

(Downloaded on 30/09/2019 at 09:11:13 PM)
(18 of 18) [SAW-1154/2019]

typographical error, but later the Board of Revenue in review

petition found it to be an error apparent on the face of record as

he called for a detailed report from Tehsildar and reached at the

truth. In any case, the correction in the number of khasra in the

notice for acquisition issued under Section 4 and Section6 of the Act could

have been made only by State Government, which had acquired

the land and not subsequently after many years thereafter in this

manner by the Settlement Officer or the Settlement

Commissioner. The Board in our view, in the review petition has

rightly overturned its earlier judgement. Rather than reviving the

revision petition for duplication of the proceedings to re-hear the

same and then pass the same order again, the Board cannot be

said to have committed any such error as may warrant

interference by this Court.

We are not inclined to uphold the argument that the appeal

against the judgement of the Board passed in revision petition

should have been entertained by the division bench of the Board.

It is only if the Board in the Single Bench has decided an appeal

that subsequent appeal before the division bench of Board could

have been entertained and therefore the revision petition was

rightly entertained and allowed.

In view of above discussion, we do not find any merit in this

appeal, which is accordingly dismissed.

(PRAKASH GUPTA),J (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), Acting CJ

RAVI SHARMA /31

(Downloaded on 30/09/2019 at 09:11:13 PM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)