Jaipur v. Mt. Gopali Devi Daughter Of

Judgment

2. Mt. Gopali Devi Daughter Of Shri Ram Niwas Wife Of Shri Damodar Prasad, Resident Of Village Bassi Tehsil Bassi District Jaipur. Government Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar Tunga District Jaipur.

3. Gram Panchayat, Tunga Tehsil Tunga And District Jaipur. ----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9997/2025 Kirti Gupta S/o Manoj Gupta, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Front Of Khadi Bhandaar, Near The House Of Advocate Rajendra Pareek, Gangadham Mode, Bassi, District Jaipur. Versus ----Petitioner

Smt. Gopali Devi D/o Shri Ram Niwas W/o Shri Damodar Prasad, R/o Village Bassi Tehsil Bassi District Jaipur. Radheshyam Adopted S/o Shri Ram Niwas, Aged About 88 Years, R/o Front Of Khadi Bhandaar, Near The House Of Advocate Rajendra Pareek, Gangadham Mode, Bassi, District Jaipur. 2,g.d. Railvihar, Sector 9, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur.

3. Government Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar Tunga District Jaipur. ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10246/2025 Aayush Gupta Son Of Manoj Gupta, Aged About 29 Years, Resident In Front Of Khadi Bhandaar, Near The House Of Advocate Rajendra Pareek, Gangadham Mode, Bassi, District Jaipur. Versus ----Petitioner

2. Smt. Gopali Devi Daughter Of Shri Ram Niwas Wife Of Shri Damodar Prasad, Resident Of Village Bassi Tehsil Bassi District Jaipur. Radheshyam Adopted Son Of Shri Ram Niwas, Aged About 88 Years, Resident In Front Of Khadi Bhandaar, Near The House Of Advocate Rajendra Pareek, [2025:RJ-JP:26258] (2 of 8) [CW-10245/2025] Gangadham Mode, Bassi, District Jaipur./2,g.d.railvihar, Sector 9, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur.

3. Government Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar Tunga District Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.N. Mathur, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Pankaj Thakuria & Mr. Utkarsh Dubey : Mr. Mahesh Gupta Mr. Pawan Pareek Mr. Raghvendra Singh Mr. S.S. Sharma Ms. Priyanshi Katta JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 15/07/2025

1. The instant writ petitions have been preferred against the impugned order dated 18.06.2024 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bassi (SDO) by which the appeal preferred by the respondents under Section 75 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1956”) has been allowed and the mutation entries made in favour of the petitioner dated 30.10.1976 have been quashed and set-aside and the matter has been remanded for holding fresh enquiry with regard to succession/successor of the deceased khatedar Ram Niwas in the revenue record.

2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner submitted an appeal under Section 76 of the Act of 1956 before the Divisional Commissioner, however, the same was rejected vide order dated

16.07.2024. Thereafter, a revision petition was submitted before [2025:RJ-JP:26258] (3 of 8) [CW-10245/2025] the Board of Revenue (hereinafter referred to as “the Board”), however, the same was also rejected vide order dated 10.06.2025.

3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was adopted by the Khatedar Ram Niwas prior to year 1960 and Ram Niwas expired in the year 1960. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the name of adoptive father of the petitioner was recorded in all public records, i.e., Ration Card, Voter Card etc. as the petitioner is adopted son of Ram Niwas. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner submitted an application before the Gram Panchayat for getting patta of a land wherein the status of the petitioner was mentioned as adopted son of Ram Niwas and the Panchayat issued a Patta by treating the petitioner as adopted son of Ram Niwas in the year 1964. Learned Senior Counsel submits that mutation of the land belonging to adoptive father of the petitioner was entered in his name vide Mutation Entry No.234 by Gram Panchayat, Tunga vide order dated 30.10.1976.

4. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the respondent is daughter of Ram Niwas and she was acquainted with all the above facts but she filed a time barred appeal before the Court of SDO along-with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1963) wherein address of the petitioner was mentioned as resident of village Madhogarh, Tehsil Bassi, District Jaipur at present resident of Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the petitioner was never served with the notice and the application submitted by the respondent under Section 5 of the Act of 1963 was allowed in one line, without assigning any justified and cogent [2025:RJ-JP:26258] (4 of 8) [CW-10245/2025] reason and the appeal preferred by the respondent was allowed vide impugned order dated 18.06.2024 by which the aforesaid mutation has been cancelled and the matter has been remanded for holding an enquiry about the successors of the deceased Khatedar Ram Niwas. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the factum of adoption of the petitioner by the deceased Khatedar Ram Niwas cannot be adjudicated by the Tehsildar as the mutation proceedings are fiscal entries in the revenue record and it is only the competent Civil Court, who has the jurisdiction in this regard. Learned Senior Counsel submits that during pendency of the aforesaid appeal before SDO, the respondent submitted a suit for declaration, correction of entries and injunction against the petitioner before the Court of Additional Collector, however, the same was dismissed in default on 26.09.2024 and thereafter no application for restoration of the aforesaid suit was filed by the petitioner. Hence, the order dated 26.09.2024 has attained finality. Learned Senior Counsel submits that in view of the submissions made hereinabove, the order passed by the SDO, quashing the mutation entries, be quashed and remand the matter to the Tehsildar for holding enquiry with regard to succession is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be quashed and set-aside.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the respondent is the real daughter of the deceased Ram Niwas and the petitioner was never adopted by her father and no document in this regard was executed in writing. Learned counsel submits that after enforcement of the Hindu Succession [2025:RJ-JP:26258] (5 of 8) [CW-10245/2025] Act, 1956, the petitioner became successor for the properties of her father. Learned counsel submits that the mutation entry dated

30.10.1976 was not within the knowledge of the respondent and when this fact came into their notice, immediately an appeal was preferred before the Court of SDO along-with an application under Section 5 of the Act of 1963 for condoning the delay. Learned counsel submits that it was the petitioner, who was supposed to file the suit for declaration and not the respondent and the petitioner has not submitted any suit for declaration as adopted son of Ram Niwas. Learned counsel submits that before making entries in the revenue record, the authority was supposed to conduct an enquiry following the process to ascertain about the successors of the deceased Khatedar in terms of Section 135 of the Act of 1956, but in the instant case, no such enquiry was conducted and only on the basis of the averments of the petitioner, the revenue entries were made in his favour by opening the mutation. Learned counsel submits that all these facts were appreciated by the SDO while passing the order dated 18.06.2024 and remanding the matter to the Tehsildar.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that as a consequence of the order dated 18.06.2024, the mutation has been opened in favour of the respondent and the said order has been assailed by the petitioner before the Divisional Commissioner by way of filing an appeal and the said appeal is still lying pending for its adjudication on merits, hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted and the writ petition is liable to be rejected. [2025:RJ-JP:26258] (6 of 8) [CW-10245/2025]

7. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record.

8. It is settled legal proposition of law that mutation entries are simply fiscal entries, which do not confer any title of any land of any person. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ramchandra Dagdu Sonavane (Dead) by Lrs. & Ors. Versus Vithu Hira Mahar (Dead) By Lrs. & Ors. reported in (2009) 10 SCC 273, has held that adoption determines the legal character, but the same cannot be decided by the Revenue Court and the revenue authorities cannot decide the issue of adoption. It has been held in Para 41, which reads as under:- “41. As regards whether there is valid adoption or not, that question pertains to the status and legal character of an individual, which falls within the purview of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and a suit for declaration before a civil court is maintainable. Therefore, the question whether a particular person has been given in adoption or not is different from whether a person has hereditary interest or rights in respect of a watan property. If this distinction is drawn, there is no exclusion of civil courts jurisdiction under the Act. When a person claims on the basis of adoption, such an adoption cannot be decided by the Collector as the same involves legal status/character of a person which can only be decided by the civil court. Whether Vithu is an adopted son or not is concluded and decided in O.S. No.104 of 1953. A specific issue had been framed and a finding was recorded though it was a suit for injunction and the findings on this issue has been confirmed by the Appellate Court and by the High Court in Regular Second Appeal.” Further, it has been held in Para 49, which reads as under:- “49. In the subsequent proceedings before the Sub- Divisional Officer, the issue was whether Vithu was the adopted son of deceased Watandar and, therefore, having hereditary interest in any inferior village watan under Watan Abolition Act, 1958. To decide this issue, the Sub- [2025:RJ-JP:26258] (7 of 8) [CW-10245/2025] Divisional Officer firstly has to decide the issue, whether Vithu is the adopted son of deceased Watandar. This issue is one which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the revenue court but falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the civil court. Since the issue of adoption was already decided between the same parties by a competent civil court, the Sub-Divisional Officer cannot decide that issue and without giving any decision on that issue could not have allowed the claim of the respondent Vithu. Therefore, in our opinion, the Principles of Res- judicata would apply to the proceedings before the Sub-Divisional Officer.”

9. Perusal of the impugned mutation entry dated 30.10.1976 indicates that simply on the basis of averments of the petitioner, he was treated as adopted son of the deceased Khatedar Ram Niwas without ascertaining that who all others were legal representatives or successors of the deceased and no enquiry was conducted in this regard.

10. This fact is not in dispute that before passing the order dated

30.10.1976, i.e., opening mutation entries in favour of the petitioner, the Gram Panchayat has not conducted an enquiry with regard to successors of the deceased khatedar, which is a mandatory provision, as contained under Section 135 of the Act of

1956. This fact was appreciated by the SDO while quashing the mutation entry order dated 30.10.1976 and remand the matter back for holding an enquiry.

11. This fact has been appreciated by the Divisional Commissioner as well as by the Board while rejecting the appeals/revision submitted by the petitioner and upholding the order dated 18.06.2024 passed by the SDO.

12. This Court finds that there is no illegality in the order of remand passed by the SDO and the matter is required to be [2025:RJ-JP:26258] (8 of 8) [CW-10245/2025] examined by the Tehsildar about the successors of the deceased Ram Niwas by holding an enquiry. A well reasoned & cogent orders have been passed not only by the SDO but also by the Divisional Commissioner and the Board, which require no interference by this Court.

13. Accordingly, all these writ petitions are liable to be and are hereby rejected.

14. Stay applications as well as all applications (pending, if any) also stand rejected.

15. It goes without saying that the petitioner is so advised, may seeks his declaration from the Civil Court to the effect that he is adopted son of the deceased Ram Niwas. Any of the observation made by this Court would not come in his way. Karan/9-11 (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J