“Legal Heirs Dispute: Court Rejects Revenue Court Jurisdiction, Advocates Civil Court Adjudication”
Title: Narayan vs Heera Lal
Citation: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 205/2023
Coram: HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Decide on: 22-08-23
Introduction:
The petitioner has filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking relief from the judgments and decrees dated 17.08.2022 (by the Board of Revenue) and 19.10.2011 (by the Sub-Divisional Officer). The petitioner requests the quashing of these judgments, the setting aside of the decrees, and the allowance of the suit filed by the plaintiffs/petitioners in the interest of justice. The petitioner also seeks any other just and proper order or direction from the Hon’ble Court based on the present facts and circumstances.
Facts:
The case involves a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Shri Madhulal, the father of the petitioners-plaintiffs, originally owned six parcels of land. After his death, the petitioners-plaintiffs sought to have their names entered into the revenue records based on intestate succession. The revenue authority initially refused the application.
Subsequently, the petitioners-plaintiffs filed a suit for the declaration of khatedari under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, and permanent injunction against the respondents-defendants. The suit was contested, with the respondents claiming to be the sole legal heirs. The Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) dismissed the suit, stating that the matter of legal heirs falls under the jurisdiction of civil courts.
The Revenue Appellate Authority (RAA) later set aside the SDO’s decision, recognizing the petitioners-plaintiffs as Khatedar of certain parcels. However, the Board of Revenue (BoR) overturned the RAA’s decision, upholding the SDO’s judgment. The petitioners argue that Natha marriage took place between Shri Madhulal and Smt. Dhapu, and both the petitioners-plaintiffs and respondent no.2 are legal heirs. They seek to have their names recorded in the revenue records based on intestate succession.
The respondents deny the existence of Natha marriage and contest the petitioners’ claim. They argue that the revenue court does not have jurisdiction in matters of legal heirs as specified in Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, relying on Section 242 of the same Act. The case involves complex issues related to succession, land ownership, and the jurisdiction of revenue courts, with each party presenting different interpretations of facts and legal provisions.
Judgement analysis:
In the judgment, the court notes that the petitioners-plaintiffs sought to record their names in revenue records based on intestate succession, but the concerned revenue authority refused. A suit was filed before the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO), who observed that the question of legal heirs falls under the jurisdiction of civil courts, not revenue courts. The Revenue Appellate Authority (RAA) allowed the petitioners’ appeal, emphasizing that the respondents failed to substantiate their claims of being legal heirs. However, the Board of Revenue (BoR) overturned the RAA’s decision, upholding the SDO’s order.
The court observes that while revenue courts can adjudicate khatedari rights, the issue of legal heirs is pivotal in this case. It highlights Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, stating that suits for determining legal heirs are not within the purview of revenue courts. The court also cites a Supreme Court judgment emphasizing that disputes over title, especially those based on a will, should be addressed in civil courts before seeking mutation entries.
Consequently, the court dismisses the petition, stating that the matter of legal heirs should be presented before a civil court for proper adjudication before approaching revenue authorities for mutation. The judgment concludes that the petitioners are not entitled to relief, and all pending applications are disposed of.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written By: Gauri Joshi