(A) Specific Relief Act, 1963, Section 38 – Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959, Section 9A – Rajasthan Panchayat (General) Rules, 1961, Rule 266 – Grant of lease – Land earmarked for grazing cattle’s (gochar land) – Suit for permanent injunction – No revenue record produced by the respondents-plaintiffs to show that the land in question was ever mutated in their favour – Nothing was referred to on behalf of the respondents from the record to show the reasons for producing copy of the document in Court and not summoning the record from the Gram Panchayat to prove execution of the alleged lease in their favour – The contents of the documents were required to be proved – If the respondents-plaintiffs wished to prove the contents of the document in question, they could very well summon the record from the Gram Panchayat when a specific plea taken by the appellants was that the document was forged and the Gram Panchayat did not have competence to lease out the land – The respondents-plaintiffs while filing the civil suit did not implead the Gram Panchayat as party – In such circumstances, the respondents-plaintiffs were required to prove the document as the competence of the Gram Panchayat to lease out the land itself was in question – The Gram Panchayat could have filed the written statement admitting or denying execution of the lease deed and place complete facts before the Court as per records – In the revenue record produced on record by the appellants, the land in question was shown in ownership of Government (Bilanam Sarkar) and was shown to be non-agricultural reserved for grazing cattles (shamlat deh) – It was incumbent on the respondents to have proved their title on the land, which they failed to establish – As per the stand of the appellants, the respondents were encroachers upon the land for which notice under Section 92A of the 1959 Act was issued to them – The same was replied to by the respondents stating therein that they have patta executed in their favour by the Gram Panchayat – Further a suit simpliciter for injunction may not be maintainable as the title of the property of the plaintiff/respondent was disputed by the appellants/defendants – In such a situation it was required for the respondent/plaintiff to prove the title of the property while praying for injunction – Judgment of the High Court suffers from patent illegality – Consequently, the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court as well as the High Court liable to be set aside and that of the Trial Court is restored – As a consequence, the suit filed by the respondents liable to be dismissed. (Para 18 to 21)
(B) Rajasthan Panchayat (General) Rules, 1961, Rule 266 – Transfer of abadi land by private negotiation – Not as per Law – Respondents/plaintiffs had not been able to prove the document on the basis of which they were claiming a right of possession of the property in question – Even if the aforesaid document is considered, the sale was clearly violative of Rule 266 of the 1961 Rules, under which aforesaid alleged lease deed/sale deed has been issued in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs – In terms of Rule 266 of the 1961 Rules, only in certain specified situation, the land could be transferred by way of sale on private negotiation, namely, where any person has a plausible claim of title to the land and auction may not fetch reasonable price or it may not be the convenient mode for disposal of land or where such a course is regarded by the Panchayat necessary for advancement of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes or other Backward Classes – Another situation envisaged is where the person is in possession of land for more than 20 years but less than 42 years – Nothing was produced on record to show that the due process required for leasing out/sale of the land in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs by private negotiation was followed – Gram Panchayat from whom the land was taken was not impleaded as party to admit or deny the allegations made by the respondents/plaintiffs in the plaint – Impugned judgments of the High Court as well as the First Appellate Court liable to be aside and that of the Trial Court is restored – Resultantly, the suits liable to be dismissed. (Para 29 and 30)
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2024 STPL(Web) 117 SC
[2024 INSC 121]
Tehsildar, Urban Improvement Trust And Anr. Vs. Ganga Bai Menariya (Dead) Through Lrs. And Others
Civil Appeal No. 722 of 2012 With Civil Appeal No. 8977 of 2012 Civil Appeal No.468 of 2013 Civil Appeal No. 524 of 2013 Civil Appeal No. 467 of 2013 And Civil Appeal No. of 2024 (Arising Out of S.L.P.(C) No. 25200 of 2013)-Decided on 20-2-2024
https://stpllaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/2024-STPLWeb-117-SC.pdf
