Can't Upset Concurrent Findings On Facts Unless There Is Any Illegality, Infirmity Or Error Of Jurisdiction: Rajasthan High Court

The Rajasthan High Court observed that well reasoned concurrent findings and reasons recorded by the prescribed authorities under the statute or by the appellate authority thereunder would not warrant any interference unless there is any illegality, infirmity or error of jurisdiction. Further, relying on Kondiba Dagadu Kadam v. Savitribai Sopan Gujar & Ors. [(1999) 3 SCC 722], the court opined that the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the three courts below are not required to be interfered with as there is no infirmity in the same and requires no interference. In Kondiba, the Apex Court observed that High Court cannot substitute its opinion for the opinion of the first appellate court unless it is found that the conclusions drawn by the lower appellate court were erroneous being contrary to the mandatory provisions of law applicable or its settled position on the basis of pronouncements made by the Apex Court, or was based upon inadmissible evidence or arrived at without evidence. Justice Vinit Mathur, while observing that there is no force in the instant writ petition, ordered, "In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the three courts below does not suffer from any infirmity as the same has been recorded after correct appreciation of evidence on record. There is no jurisdictional error in the findings recorded by the courts below which warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction. There is no force in these writ petitions. The same are, therefore, dismissed." Notably, these writ petitions arise out of the judgment and decree passed by the learned Assistant Collector and Executive Magistrate (HQ), Jodhpur which while decreeing the suit, declared the plaintiff- respondent No.1 as khatedar tenant and ordered that the lagaan be recovered from them and issued a permanent injunction against the defendants and directed them not to interfere in the khatedari land of the plaintiff. The illegal mutation made in favour of the Rajasthan Housing Board and the UIT was cancelled and set aside and the Tehsildar, Jodhpur was directed to enter the name of the plaintiff as khatedar tenant in the revenue records and necessary entries be also made in the land records. The following issues were framed by Assistant Collector & Executive Magistrate, (HQ), Jodhpur : "(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to khatedari rights on the basis of his possession in the capacity of tenant on the land mentioned in amended plaint situated in village Jodhpur as per the then existing laws of Marwar State and the Rajasthan Tenancy Act,1955? (ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction against the defendants, as the plaintiff is in cultivatory possession of the land as tenant, asami, gair-khatedar for the last 55 years? (iii) Whether the plaintiff is not entitled to khatedari rights and permanent injunctions as proceedings were initiated against him under Section 91 of The Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956? (iv) Whether since the land has been acquired as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and the agricultural land has been converted to Abadi land and since the Land Acquisition Proceedings have not been challenged in competent court within time by the plaintiff and the possession being taken by the Rajasthan Housing Board, the revenue court has no jurisdiction to hear this suit?" Thereafter, the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jodhpur dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner–Rajasthan Housing Board which was further challenged by the petitioner before the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer but that second appeal too was dismissed by the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer. Aggrieved of the three orders passed by these courts, the present writ petitions was preferred. The court held that the land acquisition proceedings initiated for the subject piece of land stood lapsed as after the enactment of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, the possession of the land was not taken and no compensation was paid. The court observed that Revenue Courts have no jurisdiction in the proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act but when the dispute is with regard to the khatedari rights in the land, the Revenue Courts have the jurisdiction to decide the dispute and admittedly in the present case, the suit was filed under Sections 88, 188 and 92(A) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 for the declaration of the Khatedari rights and and permanent injunction. Thus, the petitioner's contention that the trial court had committed jurisdictional error while entertaining the suit of the plaintiffs – respondents, is bereft of merit, added the court. Further, the court observed that since the khatedari rights were essentially granted by the State as the State is the...

Can't Upset Concurrent Findings On Facts Unless There Is Any Illegality, Infirmity Or Error Of Jurisdiction: Rajasthan High Court

ANIRUDH VIJAY

Tags