Moot reseach on the Case: Jatashankar V. Board of Revenue, Rajasthan.

1. 1
Counsel on behalf of Appellant
Table of Contents
Index of Authorities ...................................................................................................2
Statement of Jurisdiction............................................................................................3
Statement of Facts......................................................................................................4
Issues Presented .........................................................................................................6
Summary of Arguments.............................................................................................7
Arguments Advanced.................................................................................................9
Prayer .......................................................................................................................14

2. 2
Counsel on behalf of Appellant
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Books/ Acts Referred:
1. Law of Tenancy in Rajasthan, Mathur & Mathur, Unique Traders Ed 2005.
2. Commentaries on Rajasthan Tenancy Act, Devendra s. Yadav, Eastern Rajasthan Law
Publication.
3. Rajasthan Land Revenue Act.
4. Rajasthan abolition of zamindari and biswadari act, 1959
5. Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955.
Cases Cited:
1. Devi Singh and Others Vs. Board of Revenue for Rajasthan and Others
2. Basti Ram Vs. Harijya 1976 RRD 167.
3. Bhagwati Devi Vs. Board of Revenue 1968 RRD 146.
4. Laxmappa Vs. Hanumanappa AIR 2004 SC 2445.
5. Birbal Vs. State of Rajasthan 2004 RRD 566.
Websites Referred:
1. Manuptra.com
2. SCConline.com
3. Indiakanoon.org
4. LSI.org
5. Judis.nic.in

3. 3
Counsel on behalf of Appellant
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Appellant approached this Hon’ble court by the virtue of rights granted under section 96 of
the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.1
The memorandum for Appellant in the matter of Jata Shanker V.
State of Rajasthan set forth the Facts, Contentions and Arguments present in the case.
1
Appeals from original decrees (1) Save where otherwise expressly provided in the body of this Code or by any other
law for the time being in force, an appeal shall lie from every decree passed by any Court exercising original
jurisdiction the Court authorized to hear appeals from the decisions of such Court.
(2) An appeal may lie from an original decree passed ex parte.
(3) No appeal shall lie from a decree passed by the Court with the consent of parties.
(4) No appeal shall lie, except on a question of law, from a decree in any suit of the nature cognisable by Courts of
Small Cause, when the amount or value of the subject-matter of the original suit does not exceed three thousand
rupees.]

4. 4
Counsel on behalf of Appellant
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Shri Jagannath Prasad was allotted 10 bighas and 2 biswas of land in Khasra No.1120 outside
Bharatpur city on payment of 'najrana' of a sum of Rs.50/-, for development of orchard. The
mutation of the land was attested in the revenue record vide Entry No.26/2 in Samvat 2001 and
the land was thus recorded in his khatedari. Out of total 10 bighas and 2 biswas of land, Jagannath
Prasad sold 10 biswas of land to one Puran Mali. In column 4 of Jamabandi of Samvat 2014, name
of Jagannath Prasad was recorded, while in column 5 the land was recorded as Makbuja Malikan.
In Jamabandi of Samvat 2018 again Jagannath Prasad was recorded as owner of land of said Khasra
measuring 9 bigha 12 biswa whereas Puran Mali was shown as khatedar in respect of 12 biswa. In
Jamabandi of Samvat 2019 to 2022 Jagannath Prasad was recorded as khatedar of 9 bighas and 12
biswas of land, but Premdev Bhushan shown as khatedar of 10 biswas of land, who had purchased
the same from Puran Mali. The appellants' predecessor-in-title purchased 9 bigha and 5 biswa of
land from Jagannath Prasad on 12.11.1968 by registered sale deed. Mutation was attested in their
favor on 28.07.1972.
A complaint was made by one Bhagwat Prasad to Collector, Bharatpur that Jagannath Prasad
never established an orchard over the land in question. The land continuously remained as 'Banjar
Kadim'. Contrary to the conditions of allotment, Jagannath Prasad had illegally sold the land. A
notice was also sent to Jagannath Prasad challenging his status as khatedar and asking to show
cause why mutation attested in his favour may not be cancelled. He sent a reply on 18.12.1969.
The Collector accordingly issued direction to Tehsildar on 12.06.1972 to cancel khatedari entries
in favour of Jagannath Prasd. Jagannath having sold the disputed land to the appellants, they
challenged the aforesaid order in appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority. The Revenue
Appellate Authority.
In order dated 08.06.1976 held that the enquiry made by the Collector, Bharatpur, was one under
Section 9 of the Zamindari and Biswedari Act. A notice was also sent to Jagannath Prasad
challenging his status as khatedar and asking to show cause why mutation attested in his favour

5. 5
Counsel on behalf of Appellant
may not be cancelled. A note was put up to the Collector on 09.04.1972 proposing to cancel his
khatedari, which was approved by the Collector on 14.04.1972. The Collector accordingly issued
direction to Tehsildar on 12.06.1972 to cancel khatedari entries in favour of Jagannath Prasd. The
Revenue Appellate Authority in order dated 08.06.1976 held that the enquiry made by the
Collector, Bharatpur, was one under Section 9 of the Zamindari and Biswedari Act. The Board, by
its order dated 03.06.1980 allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Revenue
Appellate Authority dated 08.06.1976 and the orders of the District Collector dated 14.02.1972
and 12.06.1972. one bigha out of aforesaid land was recorded gair mumkin temple.
The appellants filed a revenue suit for declaring them as khatedar of this land and for correction in
the revenue record. the State filed written-statement claiming that since this land vested in the
State, therefore, it should be recorded as Makbuja Malikan. However, the suit was decreed in
favour of the appellants and they were declared as khatedar vide judgment dated 20.04.1982. It
may be noted that this judgment attained finality and was not challenged any further.
In compliance of the judgment of the Board of Revenue dated 30.06.1980 the land was again
recorded by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Bharatpur in khatedari of the appellants vide order
dated 11.03.1987. State filed appeal before the Settlement Officer there-against, which was
dismissed on 20.12.1987. the District Collector again issued a notice to the appellants on
23.11.1981 under Rule 399 of the Land Revenue Rules 1957 for cancellation of the khatedari.
Appellants filed preliminary objection and reply to the said notice separately on 27.09.1994 and
25.10.1994. The Board of Revenue vide order dated 06.01.1997 declared all the entries in the name
of late Shri Jagannath Prasad and through him, in favour of the appellants. It is against the backdrop
of these facts, that the present writ petition has been filed.

6. 6
Counsel on behalf of Appellant
ISSUES PRESENTED
1. Whether Jagannath Prasad was recorded as Malik under Section 17(A) of the
Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 and subsequently as khatedar?
2. Whether Jagannath Prasad established an orchard over the land prior to valid
allotment of the land to one Puran Mali. And what is the validity of such allotment?
3. Whether the appeal was maintainable before the board of revenue, ajmer or not?

7. 7
Counsel on behalf of Appellant
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
1. Whether Jagannath Prasad was recorded as Malik under Section 17(A) of the
Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 and subsequently as khatedar?
Jagannath Prasad sold 10 biswas of land to one Puran Mali. According to 17A, Malik are :
“Every Zamindar of Biswedar whose estate is vested in the State Government under the Rajasthan
Zamindari and Biswedari Abolition Act, 1959 shall be a Malik within the meaning of section 29
of that Act in respect of any Khudkasht land in his occupation at the date of such vesting.”
And if we also read Section 29 of the act , Khatedari rights in khudkasht land. - (1) As from the
date of vesting of an estate, the Zamindar or Biswedar thereof shall be a Malik of any khudkasht
land in his occupation on such date and shall, as such Malik, be entitled to all the rights conferred
and be subject to all the liabilities imposed on a khatedar tenant by or under the Rajasthan Tenancy
Act, 1955 (Rajasthan Act 3 of 1955) and]
(2) If there are more persons than one having interested in land held as Khudkasht immediately
before the date of vesting, all such persons shall be deemed to be [co-Maliks thereof].
Hence, if we put a nexus of two section with the vesting right of Jagannath Prasad in the estate,
we’ll found out that he not before the date of vesting , has occupation on the said estate as Malik
vested by the State Government in compliance of section 17(A) of the act and also has Khatedari
rights in same estate.
2. Whether Jagannath Prasad established an orchard over the land prior to valid
allotment of the land to one Puran Mali. And what is the validity of such allotment?
There was no condition attached to the sale or allotment for Jagannath Prasad to develop an orchard
the land would revert back to the State. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the
jappellant relies on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Devi Singh and Others Vs. Board of
Revenue for Rajasthan and Others

8. 8
Counsel on behalf of Appellant
Also, there was gross negligence on the part of board that Certified copy of the proceedings
obtained from the file No.75 of the Erstwhile State of Bharatpur, thus clearly shows that the
findings recorded by the Board of Revenue are passed on misreading of the original file.
Hence, it is clear on aforementioned points that not only the allotment made to the jagannath prasad
was correct but the malikana rights was also vested with him.
Even the order dated 06.11.1943 was also misconstrued by the Revenue board, it was not allotted
to Jagannath Prasad initially, rather it was allotted to Baburam and then thereafter Jagannath made
payment of 'najrana' of Rs.50/- to him, and got mutation of the estate.
3. Whether the appeal was maintainable before the board of revenue, ajmer or not?
The respondent State filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer, which was dismissed vide order
dated Even that order has attained finality.
Further the authority of the Collector to cancel the entry is not clear. Even though the Board at that
time while allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority and
the Collector, observed that this would not act as an impediment for the Collector to correct entries
after following due procedure and giving due opportunity.
Hence, the dismissal of appeal by the Settlement Officer there-against vide order 17.12.1988 have
to attain finality.

9. 9
Counsel on behalf of Appellant
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
1. Whether Jagannath Prasad was recorded as Malik under Section 17(A) of the
Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 and subsequently as khatedar?
Shri Jagannath Prasad was allotted 10 bighas and 2 biswas of land in Khasra No.1120 outside
Bharatpur city on payment of 'najrana' of a sum of Rs.50/-, for development of orchard. The
mutation of the land was attested in the revenue record vide Entry No.26/2 in Samvat 2001 and
the land was thus recorded in his khatedari. Out of total 10 bighas and 2 biswas of land, Jagannath
Prasad sold 10 biswas of land to one Puran Mali. According to 17A, Malik are2
:
“Every Zamindar of Biswedar whose estate is vested in the State Government under the Rajasthan
Zamindari and Biswedari Abolition Act, 1959 shall be a Malik within the meaning of section 29
of that Act in respect of any Khudkasht land in his occupation at the date of such vesting.”
And if we also read Section 29 of the act3
, Khatedari rights in khudkasht land. - (1) As from the
date of vesting of an estate, the Zamindar or Biswedar thereof shall be a Malik of any khudkasht
land in his occupation on such date and shall, as such Malik, be entitled to all the rights conferred
and be subject to all the liabilities imposed on a khatedar tenant by or under the Rajasthan
Tenancy Act, 1955 (Rajasthan Act 3 of 1955) and]
2
Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955.
3
Rajasthan Zamindari and Biswedari Abolition Act, 1959.

10. 10
Counsel on behalf of Appellant
(2) If there are more persons than one having interested in land held as Khudkasht immediately
before the date of vesting, all such persons shall be deemed to be [co-Maliks thereof].
Hence, if we put a nexus of two section with the vesting right of Jagannath Prasad in the estate,
we’ll found out that he not before the date of vesting4
, has occupation on the said estate as Malik
vested by the State Government in compliance of section 17(A) of the act5
and also has Khatedari
rights in same estate.6
Also, the original khatedar Jagannath Prasad or his legal heirs has vested rights in estate before
passing this order. It was argued that the impugned orders 27.09.1994 and 24.06.1994 were
otherwise also void ab initio, being barred of principles of res judicata. The question of khatedari
rights was decided in favour of the appellant in the suit for declaration and correction in entries
made in the revenue record as far back as in 1982 against the State.
Hence, the appellant bona fidely, filed a revenue suit for declaring them as khatedar of this land
and for correction in the revenue record.
4
1968 RRD 146.
5
Supra Note 2.
6
1976 RRD 167.

11. 11
Counsel on behalf of Appellant
2. Whether Jagannath Prasad established an orchard over the land prior to valid
allotment of the land to one Puran Mali. And what is the validity of such allotment?
In Jamabandi of Samvat 2018 again Jagannath Prasad was recorded as owner of land of said Khasra
measuring 9 bigha 12 biswa whereas Puran Mali was shown as khatedar in respect of 12 biswa.
Later, a notice was also sent to Jagannath Prasad challenging his status as khatedar and asking to
show cause why mutation attested in his favour may not be cancelled, of which he sent a reply on
18.12.1969. A note was put up to the Collector on 09.04.1972 proposing to cancel his khatedari,
which was approved by the Collector on 14.04.1972. The Collector accordingly issued direction
to Tehsildar on 12.06.1972 to cancel khatedari entries in favour of Jagannath Prasd. having sold
the disputed land to the Puran mali legally. Orders of the District Collector dated 14.02.1972 and
12.06.1972 also mentioned that the khatedari rights were vested in Jagannath Prasad, which he
transferred to the puran mali along with the patta of the said estate. Hence, in those orders, Hon’ble
District collector while allowing the patta impliedly consented that the allotment was correct and
within the statutory compliance.7
Even the order dated 06.11.1943 was also misconstrued by the Revenue board, it was not allotted
to Jagannath Prasad initially, rather it was allotted to Baburam and then thereafter Jagannath made
payment of 'najrana' of Rs.50/- to him, and got mutation of the estate.
7
Laxmappa Vs. Hanumanappa AIR 2004 SC 2445.

12. 12
Counsel on behalf of Appellant
The Revenue Minister has also made a note on the file on 25.01.1945 that Jagannath Prasad has
construct a bungalow (kothi), he would make an application for allotment. Taking that note, the
order was issued for allotment of the land on payment of remaining amount of najrana. Copy of
register 'dakhil kharij intkal' of Samvat 2001 has been placed on record in which name of Jagannath
Prasad has been recorded in the category of malik. An endorsement has been made in the register
on 12.09.1944 attesting mutation in favour of Jagannath Prasad.
There was no condition attached to the sale or allotment for Jagannath Prasad to develop an orchard
the land would revert back to the State. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the
jappellant relies on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Devi Singh and Others Vs. Board of
Revenue for Rajasthan and Others8
Also, there was gross negligence on the part of board that Certified copy of the proceedings
obtained from the file No.75 of the Erstwhile State of Bharatpur, thus clearly shows that the
findings recorded by the Board of Revenue are passed on misreading of the original file.
Hence, it is clear on aforementioned points that not only the allotment made to the jagannath prasad
was correct but the malikana rights was also vested with him.
8
1994) 1SCC 215.

13. 13
Counsel on behalf of Appellant
3. Whether the appeal was maintainable before the board of revenue, ajmer or not?
The respondent State filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer, which was dismissed vide order
dated Even that order has attained finality.
Further the authority of the Collector to cancel the entry is not clear. Even though the Board at that
time while allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority and
the Collector, observed that this would not act as an impediment for the Collector to correct entries
after following due procedure and giving due opportunity.
Hence, the dismissal of appeal by the Settlement Officer there-against vide order 17.12.1988 have
to attain finality. In the circumstances, the order passed by the Board of Revenue dated 06.01.1997
accepting the order passed by the District Collector dated 01.11.1994 making a reference, cannot
be sustained in law.9
The khatedari of the appellant could not therefore be canceled. the appeal made by respondent was
barred by limitation as Section 24 of the Zamindari and Biswedari Act, which provided period of
only 30 days for filing an appeal, therefore, the appeal was barred by limitation.
9
Birbal Vs. State of Rajasthan 2004 RRD 566.

14. 14
Counsel on behalf of Appellant
PRAYER
Therefore, in the light of facts presented, Arguments advanced, authorities cited, the Appellant
humbly submit that the Hon’ble High Court be pleased, to adjudged and declare that:
1. To presented appeal before the Hon’ble High Court shall be allowed.
2. The order dated 01.11.1994 of the District Collector, Bharatpur and the order dated
06.01.1997 of the Board of Revenue, are set aside.
3. To consider the vesting rights as malik in favor of Appellant.
And pass any order that this Hon’ble court may deem fit in the interest of equity, justice and Good
conscience.
And for this act of kindness, the counsel for the appellant shall duty bound forever pray.
Counsel on behalf of Appellant