Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Urn: Cw / 9162U / 2026Purkha Ram vs Mohan Ram (2026:Rj-Jd:22553) on 11 May, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:22553] (1 of 15) [CW-2797/2026]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2797/2026
Purkha Ram S/o Adopted Son Of Late Smt. Gawri Widow Of Late
Shri Lalu Ram, Aged About 72 Years, R/o Village Thob, Tehsil
Osian, District Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Mohan Ram S/o Late Shri Ram Pratap, R/o Village Thob,
Tehsil Osian, District Jodhpur.
2. Mana Ram S/o Late Shri Dungar Ram, R/o Village Thob,
Tehsil Osian, District Jodhpur.
3. Girdhari Ram S/o Late Shri Dungar Ram, R/o Village
Thob, Tehsil Osian, District Jodhpur.
4. Bala Ram S/o Late Shri Dungar Ram, R/o Village Thob,
Tehsil Osian, District Jodhpur.
5. Bhagirath Ram S/o Late Shri Rameshwar Grand Son Of
Late Ramsukh, R/o Village Thob, Tehsil Osian, District
Jodhpur.
6. Chetan Ram S/o Late Shri Rameshwar Grand Son Of Late
Ramsukh, R/o Village Thob, Tehsil Osian, District Jodhpur.
7. Ram Narayan S/o Late Shri Hari Ram, R/o Village Thob,
Tehsil Osian, District Jodhpur.
8. Kuna Ram S/o Late Shri Hari Ram, R/o Village Thob,
Tehsil Osian, District Jodhpur.
9. Bhoma Ram S/o Late Shri Hari Ram, R/o Village Thob,
Tehsil Osian, District Jodhpur.
10. Kishana Ram S/o Late Shri Hari Ram, R/o Village Thob,
Tehsil Osian, District Jodhpur.
11. State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar Osian.
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2973/2026
Purkha Ram S/o Adopted Late Smt. Gawri Widow Of Late Shri
Lalu Ram, Aged About 72 Years, R/o Village Thob, Tehsil Osian,
District Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
(Uploaded on 21/05/2026 at 04:37:57 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/05/2026 at 12:36:53 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:22553] (2 of 15) [CW-2797/2026]
Versus
1. Mohan Ram S/o Late Shri Ram Pratap, R/o Village Thob,
Tehsil Osian, District Jodhpur.
2. Mana Ram S/o Late Shri Dungar Ram, R/o Village Thob,
Tehsil Osian, District Jodhpur.
3. Girdhari Ram S/o Late Shri Dungar Ram, R/o Village
Thob, Tehsil Osian, District Jodhpur.
4. Bala Ram S/o Late Shri Dungar Ram, R/o Village Thob,
Tehsil Osian, District Jodhpur.
5. Bhagirath Ram S/o Late Shri Rameshwar Grand Son Of
Late Ramsukh, R/o Village Thob, Tehsil Osian, District
Jodhpur.
6. Chetan Ram S/o Late Shri Rameshwar Grand Son Of Late
Ramsukh, R/o Village Thob, Tehsil Osian, District Jodhpur.
7. Ram Narayan S/o Late Shri Hari Ram, R/o Village Thob,
Tehsil Osian, District Jodhpur.
8. Kuna Ram S/o Late Shri Hari Ram, R/o Village Thob,
Tehsil Osian, District Jodhpur.
9. Bhoma Ram S/o Late Shri Hari Ram, R/o Village Thob,
Tehsil Osian, District Jodhpur.
10. Kishana Ram S/o Late Hari Ram, R/o Village Thob, Tehsil
Osian, District Jodhpur.
11. State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar Osian.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3000/2026
Purkha Ram S/o Adopted Son Of Late Smt. Gawri Widow Of Late
Shri Lalu Ram, Aged About 72 Years, R/o Village Thob, Tehsil
Osian, District Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Mohan Ram S/o Late Shri Ram Pratap, R/o Village Thob,
Tehsil Osian, District Jodhpur.
2. Mana Ram S/o Late Shri Dungar Ram, R/o Village Thob,
Tehsil Osian, District Jodhpur.
3. Girdhari Ram S/o Late Shri Dungar Ram, R/o Village
Thob, Tehsil Osian, District Jodhpur.
4. Bala Ram S/o Late Shri Dungar Ram, R/o Village Thob,
(Uploaded on 21/05/2026 at 04:37:57 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/05/2026 at 12:36:53 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:22553] (3 of 15) [CW-2797/2026]
Tehsil Osian, District Jodhpur.
5. Bhagirath Ram S/o Late Shri Rameshwar Grand Son Of
Late Ramsukh, R/o Village Thob, Tehsil Osian, District
Jodhpur.
6. Chetan Ram S/o Late Shri Rameshwar Grand Son Of Late
Ramsukh, R/o Village Thob, Tehsil Osian, District Jodhpur.
7. Ram Narayan S/o Late Shri Hari Ram, R/o Village Thob,
Tehsil Osian, District Jodhpur.
8. Kuna Ram S/o Late Shri Hari Ram, R/o Village Thob,
Tehsil Osian, District Jodhpur.
9. Bhoma Ram S/o Late Shri Hari Ram, R/o Village Thob,
Tehsil Osian, District Jodhpur.
10. Kishana Ram S/o Late Shri Hari Ram, R/o Village Thob,
Tehsil Osian, District Jodhpur.
11. State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar Osian, District
Jodhpur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3155/2026
Purkha Ram S/o Adopted Son Smt. Gawri Widow Of Late Shri
Lalu Ram, Aged About 72 Years, R/o Village Thob, Tehsil Osian,
District Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Mohan Ram S/o Late Shri Ram Pratap, R/o Village Thob,
Tehsil Osian, District Jodhpur.
2. Mana Ram S/o Late Shri Dungar Ram, R/o Village Thob,
Tehsil Osian, District Jodhpur.
3. Girdhari Ram S/o Late Shri Dungar Ram, R/o Village
Thob, Tehsil Osian, District Jodhpur.
4. Bala Ram S/o Late Shri Dungar Ram, R/o Village Thob,
Tehsil Osian, District Jodhpur.
5. Bhagirath Ram S/o Late Shri Rameshwar Grand Son Of
Late Ramsukh, R/o Village Thob, Tehsil Osian, District
Jodhpur.
6. Chetan Ram S/o Late Shri Rameshwar Grand Son Of Late
Ramsukh, R/o Village Thob, Tehsil Osian, District Jodhpur.
7. Ram Narayan S/o Late Shri Hari Ram, R/o Village Thob,
Tehsil Osian, District Jodhpur.
(Uploaded on 21/05/2026 at 04:37:57 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/05/2026 at 12:36:53 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:22553] (4 of 15) [CW-2797/2026]
8. Kuna Ram S/o Late Shri Hari Ram, R/o Village Thob,
Tehsil Osian, District Jodhpur.
9. Bhoma Ram S/o Late Shri Hari Ram, R/o Village Thob,
Tehsil Osian, District Jodhpur.
10. Kishana Ram S/o Late Shri Hari Ram, R/o Village Thob,
Tehsil Osian, District Jodhpur.
11. State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar Osian, District
Jodhpur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3177/2026
Purkha Ram S/o Adopted Son Of Late Smt. Gawri Widow Of Late
Shri Lalu Ram, Aged About 72 Years, R/o Village Thob, Tehsil
Osian, District Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Mohan Ram S/o Late Shri Ram Pratap, Village Thob,
Tehsil Osian, District Jodhpur.
2. Mana Ram S/o Late Shri Dungar Ram, Village Thob, Tehsil
Osian, District Jodhpur.
3. Girdhari Ram S/o Late Shri Dungar Ram, Village Thob,
Tehsil Osian, District Jodhpur.
4. Bala Ram S/o Late Shri Dungar Ram, Village Thob, Tehsil
Osian, District Jodhpur.
5. Bhagirath Ram S/o Late Shri Rameshwar Grand Son Of
Late Ramsukh, Village Thob, Tehsil Osian, District
Jodhpur.
6. Chetan Ram S/o Late Shri Rameshwar Grand Son Of Late
Ramsukh, Village Thob, Tehsil Osian, District Jodhpur.
7. Ram Narayan S/o Late Shri Hari Ram, Village Thob, Tehsil
Osian, District Jodhpur.
8. Kuna Ram S/o Late Shri Hari Ram, Village Thob, Tehsil
Osian, District Jodhpur.
9. Bhoma Ram S/o Late Shri Hari Ram, Village Thob, Tehsil
Osian, District Jodhpur.
10. Kishana Ram S/o Late Shri Hari Ram, Village Thob, Tehsil
Osian, District Jodhpur.
11. State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar Osian.
(Uploaded on 21/05/2026 at 04:37:57 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/05/2026 at 12:36:53 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:22553] (5 of 15) [CW-2797/2026]
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3794/2026
Purkha Ram, Aged About 72 Years, R/o Village Thob, Tehsil
Osian, District Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Mohan Ram S/o Late Shri Ram Pratap, R/o Village Thob,
Tehsil Osian, District Jodhpur.
2. Mana Ram S/o Late Shri Dungar Ram, R/o Village Thob,
Tehsil Osian, District Jodhpur.
3. Girdhari Ram S/o Late Shri Dungar Ram, R/o Village
Thob, Tehsil Osian, District Jodhpur.
4. Bala Ram S/o Late Shri Dungar Ram, R/o Village Thob,
Tehsil Osian, District Jodhpur.
5. Bhagirath Ram S/o Late Shri Rameshwar Grand Son Of
Late Ramsukh, R/o Village Thob, Tehsil Osian, District
Jodhpur.
6. Chetan Ram S/o Late Shri Rameshwar Grand Son Of Late
Ramsukh, R/o Village Thob, Tehsil Osian, District Jodhpur.
7. Ram Narayan S/o Late Shri Hari Ram, R/o Village Thob,
Tehsil Osian, District Jodhpur.
8. Kuna Ram S/o Late Shri Hari Ram, R/o Village Thob,
Tehsil Osian, District Jodhpur.
9. Bhoma Ram S/o Late Shri Hari Ram, R/o Village Thob,
Tehsil Osian, District Jodhpur.
10. Kishana Ram S/o Late Shri Hari Ram, R/o Village Thob,
Tehsil Osian, District Jodhpur.
11. State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar Osian.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5120/2026
Purkha Ram S/o Adopted Son Of Late Smt. Gawri Widow Of Late
Shri Lalu Ram, Aged About 72 Years, R/o Village Thob, Tehsil
Osian, District Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Mohan Ram S/o Late Shri Ram Pratap, R/o Village Thob,
(Uploaded on 21/05/2026 at 04:37:57 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/05/2026 at 12:36:53 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:22553] (6 of 15) [CW-2797/2026]
Tehsil Osian, District Jodhpur.
2. Mana Ram S/o Late Shri Dungar Ram, R/o Village Thob,
Tehsil Osian, District Jodhpur.
3. Girdhari Ram S/o Late Shri Dungar Ram, R/o Village
Thob, Tehsil Osian, District Jodhpur.
4. Bala Ram S/o Late Shri Dungar Ram, R/o Village Thob,
Tehsil Osian, District Jodhpur.
5. Bhagirath Ram S/o Late Shri Rameshwar Grand Son Of
Late Ramsukh, R/o Village Thob, Tehsil Osian, District
Jodhpur.
6. Chetan Ram S/o Late Shri Rameshwar Grand Son Of Late
Ramsukh, R/o Village Thob, Tehsil Osian, District Jodhpur.
7. Ram Narayan S/o Late Shri Hari Ram, R/o Village Thob,
Tehsil Osian, District Jodhpur.
8. Kuna Ram S/o Late Shri Hari Ram, R/o Village Thob,
Tehsil Osian, District Jodhpur.
9. Bhoma Ram S/o Late Shri Hari Ram, R/o Village Thob,
Tehsil Osian, District Jodhpur.
10. Kishana Ram S/o Late Shri Hari Ram, R/o Village Thob,
Tehsil Osian, District Jodhpur.
11. State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar Osian.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.K. Thanvi, Senior Advocate
assisted by Mr. Mahendra Thanvi, Mr.
Narendra Thanvi & Mr. Ashok Thanvi.
Mr. R.J. Punia.
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT
Order
11/05/2026
1. Present bunch of writ petitions has been filed by petitioner
challenging dismissal of appeals filed before Learned Court of
Assistant Collector-cum-SDO, Osian, under Section 75 of the
Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (“LR Act”), whereby mutations
entered in favour of private respondents were challenged.
Petitioner has further challenged orders passed by Learned
(Uploaded on 21/05/2026 at 04:37:57 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/05/2026 at 12:36:53 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:22553] (7 of 15) [CW-2797/2026]
Revenue Appellate Authority and Learned Board of Revenue,
whereby appeals / revision petitions preferred against order
passed by Learned Assistant Collector-cum-SDO, Osian, were
dismissed.
2. Since present bunch of writ petitions have been filed against
the same respondents and arise out of similar proceedings and
further challenging orders dismissing appeals / revision petitions
on the ground of delay, this Court deems it appropriate to decide
present bunch of writ petitions by this common order.
3. For the sake of convenience, facts pertaining to S.B. Civil
Writ Petition No. 2797/2026 are being taken into consideration.
4. Explaining the background facts, learned Senior Counsel Mr.
R.K. Thanvi stated that land comprised in Khasra Nos. 1500,
1527, 1525, 1508, 1501, 1524/1, 1518 and 1524, admeasuring
142 bighas 11 biswas, situated in Village Thob, Tehsil Osian,
District Jodhpur (“land in question”) was recorded in the name of
Late Shri Shera Ram, who passed away on 15.01.1973, leaving
behind him his four sons, namely Lala Ram, Dungar Ram,
Ramsukh and Hari Ram. Petitioner herein claims himself to be the
adopted son on Late Shri Lala Ram.
4.1 It was stated that as the land in question was ancestral
property of Late Shri Shera Ram, all his four sons were entitled to
equal share in said land. However, on the basis of a registered
partition deed executed on 14.09.1967, the Revenue Inspector
entered mutation entries on 07.04.1969. It was submitted that
the name of Shri Lala Ram @ Lalu Ram was not mentioned in said
partition deed and, therefore, no mutation was recorded in his
favour.
(Uploaded on 21/05/2026 at 04:37:57 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/05/2026 at 12:36:53 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:22553] (8 of 15) [CW-2797/2026]
4.2 It was contended that although petitioner remained in
possession of part of the land in question and jointly cultivated the
same, but he had no knowledge of mutation entries made in
favour of private respondents. According to the petitioner, it was
only in July 2016, when respondents objected to his possession,
he for the first time came to know about mutation entries dated
07.04.1969 recorded in favour of respondents.
4.3 Consequently, challenging Mutation No. 214 dated
05.04.1969, an appeal was filed under Section 75 of the LR Act
along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act,
stating that petitioner though always remained in possession and
was jointly carrying out agricultural activities upon the land in
question, but on 13.07.2016, when respondent No.1 – Mohan Ram
objected to his possession, he approached the Revenue Authorities
and came to know about mutation entries on 25.07.2016,
whereupon, after obtaining certified copies, the appeal had been
filed.
4.4 Private respondents filed a reply to said application, denying
petitioner’s possession and joint cultivation upon the land in
question. It was submitted therein that the partition deed had
been executed with the consent of the parties and was duly
registered. It was further contended that petitioner, being an
educated person, could not be presumed to have no knowledge of
mutation entries opened in favour of respondents. It is contended
that period of limitation prescribed for filing an appeal under
Section 75 of the LR Act is 30 days, but the appeal had been
preferred after a delay of 47 years, and, therefore, is not
maintainable.
(Uploaded on 21/05/2026 at 04:37:57 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/05/2026 at 12:36:53 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:22553] (9 of 15) [CW-2797/2026]
4.5 According to the respondents, late Shri Lala Ram and his
wife Gawari Devi had never objected, during their lifetime, to the
partition effected amongst the family members and the
consequent mutation entered in the year 1969. It was alleged that
petitioner claiming himself to be the adopted son of Smt. Gawari
Devi had filed present appeal after such gross delay with the sole
objective of harassing the respondents. Respondents also denied
the fact that the land in question was ancestral property and
submitted that it was self-acquired property of Late Shri Shera
Ram, which had been partitioned with his due consent during his
lifetime while he alone was the recorded khatedar tenant.
4.6 Learned Court of Assistant Collector-cum-SDO considered
the rival submissions and recorded a specific finding that mutation
opened in favour of respondents was not based upon inheritance
but upon a registered document executed by Late Shri Shera Ram
in favour of his three sons and grandson. It was further observed
that no substantial or justified reason had been assigned to
explain the delay of 47 years in filing the appeal and the sole
explanation furnished was the petitioner’s alleged ignorance of the
mutation entries, which learned SDO found as improbable,
unreasonable and unjustifiable. It was observed by learned SDO
that the registered document on the basis of which mutation was
entered had neither been challenged nor cancelled by any
Competent Court and, therefore, cancellation of mutation was not
permissible. On the basis of aforesaid observations, learned SDO
dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay as well as on merits
vide order dated 05.03.2019.
(Uploaded on 21/05/2026 at 04:37:57 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/05/2026 at 12:36:53 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:22553] (10 of 15) [CW-2797/2026]
4.7 Challenging said order, petitioner preferred an appeal before
learned Revenue Appellate Authority. Concurring with the findings
recorded by learned SDO and relying upon judgments of the
Hon’ble Apex Court, learned RAA held that petitioner had failed to
show sufficient cause for condonation of delay of 47 years and,
therefore, dismissed the appeal vide order dated 16.01.2023.
4.8 Said order dated 16.01.2023 was thereafter challenged by
way of revision petitions before learned Board of Revenue, and
vide order dated 25.09.2025, learned Board of Revenue declined
to interfere with impugned order and dismissed the revision
petitions, holding that no error had been committed by the
authorities below in refusing to condone the delay of 47 years and
dismissing the appeals.
4.9 Challenging said order dated 25.09.2025 passed by learned
Board of Revenue, along with orders dated 16.01.2023 and
05.03.2019, present writ petition has been filed.
5. Learned Senior Counsel representing petitioner submitted
that since the land in question was recorded in the name of Late
Shri Shera Ram, all his four sons had equal right in the same. It
was contended that the partition deed / family settlement
executed and registered in the year 1967 was forged and
fabricated and, therefore, the mutation impugned herein is also
unsustainable in the eyes of law.
5.1 Learned counsel further submitted that learned authorities
below committed an error in refusing to condone the delay while
only considering the length of delay without taking into account
the reasons/cause shown by petitioner, which constituted
(Uploaded on 21/05/2026 at 04:37:57 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/05/2026 at 12:36:53 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:22553] (11 of 15) [CW-2797/2026]
sufficient cause. According to the petitioner, predetermined
approach of learned Revenue Courts has vitiated the entire
adjudication. It is further contended that learned RAA, Jodhpur as
well as learned Board of Revenue dismissed the appeal/revision
petition merely by reiterating the observations made by learned
SDO and, therefore, impugned orders are unsustainable in the
eyes of law.
6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the
material available on record.
7. A bare perusal of the record reveals that mutation dated
07.04.1969 was entered in favour of respondents on the basis of a
registered document dated 14.09.1967 executed by Late Shri
Shera Ram during his lifetime. Admittedly, the appeal under
Section 75 of the LR Act challenging said mutation came to be
filed only in the year 2016, i.e. after a delay of approximately 47
years.
7.1 The explanation furnished by petitioner for such delay is
essentially that he came to know about the mutation entries only
in July, 2016 when respondents objected to his possession over
the land in question. Apart from this, the application for
condonation of delay merely refers to facts regarding time taken
in obtaining certified copies and seeking legal advice.
7.2 In this regard, reliance may be placed upon the judgement
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Balwant Singh
(Dead) v. Jaswant Singh & Ors., (2010) 8 SCC 685, wherein,
on the law of limitation and condonation of delay, it has been held
thus: –
“26. The law of limitation is a substantive law and has def-
inite consequences on the right and obligation of a party to(Uploaded on 21/05/2026 at 04:37:57 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/05/2026 at 12:36:53 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:22553] (12 of 15) [CW-2797/2026]arise (sic a lis). These principles should be adhered to and
applied appropriately depending on the facts and circum-
stances of a given case. Once a valuable right has accrued
in favour of one party as a result of the failure of the other
party to explain the delay by showing sufficient cause and
its own conduct, it will be unreasonable to take away that
right on the mere asking of the applicant, particularly when
the delay is directly a result of negligence, default or inac-
tion of that party. Justice must be done to both parties
equally. Then alone the ends of justice can be achieved. If a
party has been thoroughly negligent in implementing its
rights and remedies, it will be equally unfair to deprive the
other party of a valuable right that has accrued to it in law
as a result of his acting vigilantly.”
7.3 In the case of Basawaraj v. Special Land Acquisition
Officer, (2013) 14 SCC 81, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
summarized the principles that govern the exercise of judicial
discretion in condoning delay, and the relevant paragraph is
extracted hereinbelow: –
“15. The law on the issue can be summarised to the effect
that where a case has been presented in the court beyond
limitation, the applicant has to explain the court as to what
was the “sufficient cause” which means an adequate and
enough reason which prevented him to approach the court
within limitation. In case a party is found to be negligent, or
for want of bona fide on his part in the facts and circum-
stances of the case, or found to have not acted diligently or
remained inactive, there cannot be a justified ground to
condone the delay. No court could be justified in condoning
such an inordinate delay by imposing any condition whatso-
ever. The application is to be decided only within the para-
meters laid down by this Court in regard to the condonation
of delay. In case there was no sufficient cause to prevent a
litigant to approach the court on time condoning the delay
without any justification, putting any condition whatsoever,
amounts to passing an order in violation of the statutory(Uploaded on 21/05/2026 at 04:37:57 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/05/2026 at 12:36:53 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:22553] (13 of 15) [CW-2797/2026]provisions and it tantamount to showing utter disregard to
the legislature.”
7.4 Applying aforesaid principles to the facts of present case, this
Court finds no infirmity in the view taken by the learned revenue
courts in refusing to condone such gross delay. The sole
explanation furnished by the petitioner, namely lack of knowledge
of mutation entries for nearly half a century, does not inspire
confidence, particularly when advanced by a person who is
admittedly well-educated and also claims to have remained in
continuous possession and joint cultivation over the land in
question. The learned courts below have concurrently found that
no sufficient cause was made out for condoning the delay of 47
years and this Court finds no reason to take a different view. The
law of limitation is founded upon principles of finality and certainty
and, in the absence of sufficient cause, such extraordinary delay
cannot be lightly condoned.
8. This Court also finds that the mutation in question was not
entered on the basis of inheritance but on the strength of a
registered document executed by Late Shri Shera Ram himself
during his lifetime. Admittedly, said document has neither been
challenged nor set aside by any competent forum.
8.1 Once the foundational document continues to subsist, the
mutation entered on the basis thereof cannot be interfered with. It
is also significant that neither Late Shri Shera Ram nor Late Shri
Lala Ram and Smt. Gawari Devi disputed the said document or
mutation entries during their lifetime. In such circumstances,
petitioner who claims himself to be the adopted son of late Smt.
Gawari w/o of Late Shri Lala Ram, was rightly denied permission
to challenge the same.
(Uploaded on 21/05/2026 at 04:37:57 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/05/2026 at 12:36:53 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:22553] (14 of 15) [CW-2797/2026]
9. Learned SDO, learned RAA and learned Board of Revenue
have concurrently recorded findings on both aspects, namely
absence of sufficient cause for condonation of delay of 47 years so
also on continuance of the registered document forming the basis
of mutation. No perversity, jurisdictional error or manifest illegality
has been established so as to warrant interference in exercise of
writ jurisdiction.
9.1 It is well-settled position of law that concurrent findings of
learned Courts below should not ordinarily be interfered with by
this Court while exercising its extraordinary writ jurisdiction,
particularly in the absence of any patent illegality, perversity,
misreading of evidence, or jurisdictional error being demonstrated
by petitioner. In this regard, reliance may appropriately be placed
upon the judgment passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ
Petition No. 10774 titled Forest Department, Govt. of
Rajasthan v. Kanna & Ors., relevant paragraphs of which are
reproduced herein below
“23. The finding of fact recorded by the First Appellate Au-
thority and affirmed by the Revisional Authority does not
require any interference by this Court as the learned Sr.
Counsel for the Forest Department has failed to produce
any document to show that the findings recorded by the
Courts below are in contravention of the Revenue Records
or they are so perverse which requires any interference by
this Court. This Court also finds that the scope of interfer-
ence on the factual aspect recorded by the Courts below is
very narrow and unless any glaring fact is brought to the
notice of this Court, no interference is warranted. The con-
current findings of fact recorded by the courts below are
contrary to the documents placed on record, therefore, they
are not required to be interfered with.”
(Uploaded on 21/05/2026 at 04:37:57 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/05/2026 at 12:36:53 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:22553] (15 of 15) [CW-2797/2026]
9.2 Similarly, in Ganga Ram & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan,
2012 (1) RRT 325, this Court has held as follows: –
“In this view of the matter, in considered opinion of this
Court, the concurrent findings arrived at by the three
Courts below after due appreciation of evidence on record
cannot be said to be capricious or perverse and the order
impugned passed by the Board does not suffer from any
jurisdictional error so as to warrant interference by this
Court in exercised of its extra ordinary jurisdiction.”
9.3 Furthermore, it is also a well-entrenched principle of law that
the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India is not to be exercised as an appellate power to re-appreciate
evidence or to substitute the opinion of the High Court for that of
the lower revenue courts. Interference is warranted only in cases
of manifest injustice, patent illegality, or where the authorities
below have crossed the parameters of their jurisdiction. Burdening
this judgment with copious quotes from a catena of authoritative
precedents such as Waryam Singh v. Amarnath, Shalini
Shyamsunder Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil, Garment
Craft v. Prakash Chand Goel would be futile, as the settled
jurisprudential position is beyond cavil.
10. Consequently, this Court finds no merit in present writ
petitions and the same are hereby dismissed. Impugned orders
dated 05.03.2019, 16.01.2023 and 25.09.2025 are hereby
affirmed and upheld.
11. Stay applications and all pending applications, if any, also
stand disposed of.
(SANJEET PUROHIT),J
25-31-sumer/-
(Uploaded on 21/05/2026 at 04:37:57 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/05/2026 at 12:36:53 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
