Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Balu Ram vs Board Of Revenue, Ajmer on 13 February, 2026
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2026:RJ-JD:7328-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 287/2021
Balu Ram S/o Shri Goru Ram, Aged About 77 Years, B/c Jat, R/o
Village Sandan, Tehsil Sujangarh, District Churu (Rajasthan)
----Appellant
Versus
1. Board Of Revenue, Ajmer, Through Its Registrar.
2. Tehsildar (Revenue), Sujangarh, District Churu.
3. Manju Kanwar W/o Narendra Singh, B/c Rajput, R/o Khudi
Tehsil Sujangarh, District Churu (Raj.)
4. Udaibhan Singh S/o Narendra Singh, B/c Rajput, R/o
Khudi Tehsil Sujangarh, District Churu (Raj.)
5. Ranjit Singh S/o Narendra Singh, B/c Rajput, R/o Khudi
Tehsil Sujangarh, District Churu (Raj.)
6. Shakti D/o Narendra Singh, B/c Rajput, R/o Khudi Tehsil
Sujangarh, District Churu (Raj.)
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Moti Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Singh Rajpurohit, AAG
assisted by Mr. Sher Singh Rathore
Ms. Aditi Sharma
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA
Judgment
BY THE COURT: (PER HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR)
1. Date of conclusion of argument 04.02.2026
2. Date on which the judgment was 04.02.2026
reserved
3. Whether the full judgment or only Full Judgment
operative part is pronounced
4. Date of Pronouncement 13.02.2026
1. The present appeal has been filed against the order dated
06.04.2021 passed by the learned Single Bench, whereby the
(Uploaded on 16/02/2026 at 02:07:19 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/02/2026 at 08:43:40 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:7328-DB] (2 of 18) [SAW-287/2021]
writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3539/2014
preferred by the appellant-petitioner has been dismissed.
2. Brief facts of present special appeal is that the dispute pertains
to land originally recorded in Jamabandi of Samwat 2002 as
“Johad Refayaam” comprising of Khasra No.257 admeasuring
17 Bighas situated at village Khudi, Tehsil Sujangarh, churu.
During subsequent revenue entries, the land was shown as
“Refayaam” in Samwat 2010. After settlement operations in
Samwat 2028, the old khasara Number was re-numbered as
New Khasra Nos.553, 561 and 562, admeasuring 5 Bigha, 1.5
Bigha and 10 Bigha respectively, total measuring 16.5 Bighas,
and was recorded in the name of one Narendra Singh S/o Devi
Singh, Jagirdar of village Khudi, Tehsil Sujangarh.
3. Narendra Singh, thereafter, executed a registered sale deed in
favour of the appellant-petitioner Balu Ram. In the year 2006,
the Tehsildar, Sujangarh filed a reference application invoking
the provisions of Section 82 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue
Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) before the
learned Additional Collector, Churu contending that the land
being a “Johad Refayaam”, the khatedari entry in favour of
Narendra Singh and consequential sale in favour of the
petitioner were illegal, and the land ought to be recorded as
Johad.
4. The Additional Collector, Churu, proceeded ex parte against the
appellant and vide order dated 30.03.2007 accepted the
reference application preferred by Tehsildar and forwarded it to
the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue, Ajmer, after
(Uploaded on 16/02/2026 at 02:07:19 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/02/2026 at 08:43:40 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:7328-DB] (3 of 18) [SAW-287/2021]
registering Reference No. LR/4234/2007 and hearing the both
the parties, vide order dated 13.02.2014 directed for
cancellation of the appellant-petitioner’s khatedari rights and
ordered that the land in question be recorded as “Gair Mumkin
Johad”.
5. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred Writ Petition being
SBCWP No.3539/2014 before this Court challenging both the
aforesaid orders. The learned Single Judge, after considering
the pleadings and submissions of the parties, dismissed the writ
petition vide order dated 06.04.2021, holding that the orders
passed by the revenue authorities did not suffer from any
illegality and the land in question is undisputedly a “Johad
Refayaam” land, which is barred to be allotted or owned by
anyone.
6. Hence, the present Special Appeal has been filed against the
order dated 06.04.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge,
whereby Writ Petition No.3539/2014 filed by the appellant-
petitioner Balu Ram was dismissed, affirming the orders dated
30.03.2007 passed by the learned Additional Collector, Churu
and 13.02.2014 passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer.
Submissions on behalf of learned counsel for appellant-
petitioner
7. Learned counsel for the appellant- petitioner submitted that the
appellant-petitioner is a bonafide purchaser and khatedar
cultivating the land of Khasra Nos. 553 admeasuring (5 Bigha),
561 (1 Bigha 5 Biswa) and 562 (10 Bigha), total admeasuring
16 Bigha 5 Biswa, situated at village Khudi, Tehsil Sujangarh,
(Uploaded on 16/02/2026 at 02:07:19 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/02/2026 at 08:43:40 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:7328-DB] (4 of 18) [SAW-287/2021]
District Churu, having purchased the said land through a
registered sale deed dated 14.06.1976 from the recorded
khatedar Shri Narendra Singh s/o Thakur Devi Singh for valid
consideration. He further submitted that the khatedari rights of
the appellant-petitioner flowed from a lawful settlement
operation conducted in Samwat 2028 (in year 1968)
wherein the land in question was recorded as “Banjar/Barani
land” and the name of Narendra singh was recorded as
khatedar in the revenue record, who was competent enough to
transfer the same. Upon execution of the registered sale deed,
mutation No.69 was duly sanctioned and the appellant has
remained in continuous, peaceful cultivatory possession of the
land in question for more than three decades.
8. Learned counsel for appellant-petitioner further submitted that
the entire proceedings initiated under Section 82 of the
Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 are vitiated on facts as well
as in law. The reference proceedings initiated by the Tehsildar
in the year 2006-07 was founded on an erroneous assumption
that the entire old Khasra No.257 admeasuring 17 Bighas was
recorded as “Johad Refayaam”, whereas a bare perusal of the
Jamabandi of Samwat 2002 and subsequent Jamabandis clearly
demonstrate that only 16 Biswa of land of said khasra was
recorded as “Gair Mumkin Johad land” and the remaining land,
measuring approximately 16.4 Bighas, was recorded as Banjar
land in the name of the private khatedar. During settlement,
the said 16 Biswa Johad land was separately carved out and
recorded as new Khasra No.560 as Government land/public
(Uploaded on 16/02/2026 at 02:07:19 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/02/2026 at 08:43:40 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:7328-DB] (5 of 18) [SAW-287/2021]
utility, which continues to exist as such even today. Thus, the
findings of the revenue authorities that the entire land
purchased by the appellant was “Johad Refayaam” or restricted
land are patently perverse and contrary to the revenue record.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner submitted that the
Additional Collector, Churu acted in gross violation of the
principles of natural justice by passing an ex parte order dated
30.03.2007 without issuing any notice or affording an
opportunity of hearing to the appellant, despite the fact that his
name stood recorded as khatedar in the revenue record for
decades. The Board of Revenue, instead of curing this
foundational illegality, mechanically affirmed the reference and
cancelled the appellant’s khatedari rights by treating the entire
land as “Gair Mumkin Johad land”, without appreciating the
Missal Bandobast, Jamabandi entries and the classification of
land under Rule 39 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Survey,
Record and Settlement) Rules, 1957, which clearly distinguish
between “Banjar (Barren uncultivated land)” and “Gair Mumkin
(non-agricultural land)”.
10. Learned counsel also emphasized that the exercise of reference
jurisdiction after an inordinate and unexplained delay of more
than 31 years from the date of mutation and more than 40
years from the date of settlement is wholly without jurisdiction.
He submitted that the law is well settled that powers under
Section 82 of the Act cannot be invoked after an unreasonable
lapse of time, particularly when, the khatedar is in settled
power & possession and there is no allegation of fraud,
(Uploaded on 16/02/2026 at 02:07:19 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/02/2026 at 08:43:40 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:7328-DB] (6 of 18) [SAW-287/2021]
collusion or fabrication. In the present case, the respondents
have neither pleaded nor proved any fraud on the part of the
appellant or his predecessor-in-title.
11. Learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner also
submitted that the land in khasra No.257 was neither recorded
as “Gair Mumkin Johad land” at the time of settlement, nor it
was a part of the government land.
12. Learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner further
submitted that the learned Board of Revenue has also relied
upon the Jamabandi of Samwat 2011, whereas a bare perusal
of the record, it is clear that land of khasra No.267 was a part
of “Gair Mumkin Johad land”, while the land of khasra No.257
was divided into new khasras i.e. khasra No.553, 560, 561and
562, and thus, khasra No.257 was not a part of “Gair Mumkin
johad land”.
13. Learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner submitted that the
impugned order dated 06.04.2021, as well as the orders passed
by the Board of Revenue dated 13.02.2014 and the Additional
Collector, dated 30.03.2007 are unsustainable in law and
deserve to be quashed, with restoration of the appellant’s
khatedari rights over the land in question.
14. Learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner relied upon the
judgment rendered by a Division bench of this Court at Jaipur
Bench in Anandi Lal v. State of Rajasthan reported in
(RLW 1996 (1) Rajasthan 396) and submitted that the legal
position is well settled that the power of reference under
Section 82 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act cannot be
(Uploaded on 16/02/2026 at 02:07:19 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/02/2026 at 08:43:40 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:7328-DB] (7 of 18) [SAW-287/2021]
exercised after an unreasonably long lapse of time, particularly
where the person concerned is in settled possession of the land
and has acquired valid khatedari rights, and that a mutation
cannot be cancelled in such circumstances.
15. Learned counsel further placed reliance upon the judgment of
this Court at Jaipur Bench in Babu Singh v. Board of
Revenue, Ajmer (2009 (2) RLW RJ 969), wherein it has
been categorically held that where reference proceedings are
initiated after an inordinate delay of about 35 years from the
conferment of khatedari rights and the land has been improved
and cultivated by the khatedar, neither title nor possession can
be disturbed on the basis of such belated reference.
16. Reliance was also placed on the judgment rendered by Division
Bench of this Hon’ble court in the case of State of Rajasthan
v. Teja (RRD 2005 365), wherein this this Court held that
once a person has acquired khatedari rights and has continued
in possession of the land for a considerable period, such rights
cannot be called in question after an unreasonable delay in the
absence of a positive and specific allegation of fraud or
collusion between the public officer and the private party.
17. Learned counsel further relied upon the judgment rendered by
Court at Jaipur Bench in Somati Devi v. State of Rajasthan
(RRD 2005 669), wherein it has been held that after
acquisition of khatedari rights by a person, and in absence of
any allegation or proof of fraud, such rights cannot be cancelled
by invoking the reference jurisdiction after an inordinate delay
of about 35 years.
(Uploaded on 16/02/2026 at 02:07:19 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/02/2026 at 08:43:40 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:7328-DB] (8 of 18) [SAW-287/2021]
18. Reference was also made to the judgment rendered by Division
Bench of this Hon’ble court in Bharat Ram v. Board of
Revenue, Ajmer (2006 (1) RLW RJ 66), wherein this
Hon’ble Court reiterated that interference in reference
proceedings after an unreasonable delay is permissible only in
cases where the original order or entry is shown to have been
obtained by playing fraud.
19. Lastly, learned counsel drew attention to the recent judgment
of the Division Bench of this Court in State of Rajasthan Vs.
Subhan Khan (SAW No.12/2005 decided on 13.08.2024),
wherein it has been held that where an order is not obtained by
fraud or misrepresentation, no interference is warranted, and
that even where no specific limitation is prescribed under the
statute, the power must be exercised within a reasonable
period, except in cases involving fraud.
Submissions on behalf of learned counsel for
respondents-state
20. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on
behalf of the respondents drew the attention of the Court to
Section 16 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, which reads as
under:
“16. Land in which Khatedari rights shall
not accrue-Notwithstanding anything in this
Act or in any other law or enactment for the
time being in force in any part of the State
Khatedari rights shall not accrue in
i. pasture land;
ii. land used for casual or occasional
cultivation in the bed of river or tank;
iii. land covered by water and used for the
purpose of growing Singhara or other like
produce;
(Uploaded on 16/02/2026 at 02:07:19 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/02/2026 at 08:43:40 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:7328-DB] (9 of 18) [SAW-287/2021]iv. land under shifting or unstable
cultivation;
v. land comprised in gardens owned and
maintained by the State Governments;
vi. land acquired or held for a public
purpose or a work of public utility;
vii. land which, at the commencement of
this Act or at any time thereafter, is set apart
for military encamping grounds;
viii. land situated within the limits of
cantonment;
ix. land included within railway or canal
boundaries;
x. land within the boundaries of any
Government forest;
xi. municipal trenching grounds;
xii. land held or acquired by educational
institutions for purposes of instruction in
agriculture or for play- ground; and
xiii. land within the boundaries of a
Government agricultural or grass farm;
xiv. land which has been set apart or is, in
the opinion of the Collector, necessary for flow
of water thereon in to any reservoir or tanka
for drinking water for a village or for
surrounding villages:
Provided that the State Government may, by
notification in the Official Gazette declare that
any land which is under shifting or unstable
cultivation, shall cease to be a land for such
cultivation and thereupon such land shall be
available for the grant of Khatedari rights and
the State Government may by a like
notification, declare that any land which was
not at the commencement of this Act under
shifting or unstable cultivation shall at any
time after such commencement be under
such cultivation from such date as may be
specified in the notification and thereupon
such land shall be available for such
cultivation.”
21. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the
respondents submitted that the land in question was recorded
as “Johad Refayaam”, being a catchment area of a water
body, over which no tenancy or khatedari rights could legally
accrue. He further submitted that the appellant-petitioner,
(Uploaded on 16/02/2026 at 02:07:19 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/02/2026 at 08:43:40 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:7328-DB] (10 of 18) [SAW-287/2021]
under the garb of allotment and subsequent mutation entries,
has encroached upon land recorded as “Johad Refayaam”,
which is meant for common use and conservation purposes.
22. Learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that the
issue relating to protection of common lands and water bodies
is no longer res integra. Reliance was placed upon the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jagpal Singh &
Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors. (SLP No.3109/2011)
decided on 28.01.2011, wherein directions were issued to all
the States to frame schemes for eviction of illegal and
unauthorised occupants from lands meant for common use of
villagers, including ponds, johads, tanks and other water
bodies, and to restore such lands to their original use.
23. Learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that the
land in dispute was consistently recorded as “Johad
Refayaam” in the revenue records. He also placed reliance
upon the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Hon’ble
Court in Abdul Rahman v. Board of Revenue & Ors. (D.B.
Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No.1536/2003), decided on
21.07.2008, wherein specific directions were issued to the
State Government for removal of encroachments from
catchment areas of water bodies and for restoration of such
natural resources.
24. Learned Additional Advocate General further relied upon the
judgment passed by this Court at Jaipur Bench in Suo Motu v.
State of Rajasthan (S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.11153/2011), decided on 29.05.2012, wherein categorical
(Uploaded on 16/02/2026 at 02:07:19 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/02/2026 at 08:43:40 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:7328-DB] (11 of 18) [SAW-287/2021]
directions were issued restraining allotment of land falling in
catchment areas of water reservoirs such as johads, nalas,
tanks, rivers and ponds, with a further direction to take
appropriate action for cancellation of allotments made in
violation of Section 16 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955.
25. Further reliance was placed upon the judgment of this Hon’ble
Court in Gulab Kothari v. State of Rajasthan, reported in
(2017) 2 RLW 1178, wherein the Court, while emphasising
the need for conservation and preservation of natural
resources, directed the State authorities to remove
encroachments over water bodies and catchment areas and to
cancel allotments made in contravention of Section 16 of the
Act of 1955. The relevant paragraph of the said judgment is as
under:-
“205. In the result, having regard to the
aforesaid conclusions arrived at, we issue the
following directions:
(xxxi) The State Authorities shall take
effective steps for conservation and
preservation of natural resources i.e. hills,
forests, rivers, other water bodies and
catchment area. Further, the State
Authorities shall undertake a drive to remove
all encroachments made over the natural
resources noticed hereinabove and the
unauthorized activities operating thereon and
shall restore such natural resources by taking
appropriate action including the cancellation
of allotment made in defiance of provisions of
Section 16 of the Act of 1955.”
26. Learned Additional Advocate General also relied upon the
judgment in Kantilal v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., reported
in 2019 (1) C) (Civ.) (Raj.) 153, to contend that not only
water bodies, but also their boundaries and catchment areas
(Uploaded on 16/02/2026 at 02:07:19 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/02/2026 at 08:43:40 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:7328-DB] (12 of 18) [SAW-287/2021]
are required to be protected, and that mere nomenclature in
the revenue record would not dilute the character of the land
forming part of a water body or its catchment. The relevant
paragraph of the said judgment is as under:
“16. Under the law if the tank. nadi or
talab is required to be protected, then
obviously, its boundary and catchment
area are also required to be protected
and thus, nothing turns on the question
that according to the private respondents
earlier in the revenue record the land
alleged to have been regularised in their
favour, comprising Khasra No.407 was
shown in the revenue record as ‘Talab Ki
Pal’ and not ‘gair mumkin nadi’ as such.
As a matter of fact in the order dated
31.7.85 passed by the Tehsildar, Aburoad,
regularising possession of father of the
private respondents over the land
measuring 755 sq. Yard comprising
Khasra No.529, it is specifically observed
that land sought to be regularised forms
part of ‘gair mumkin nadi.”
27. Learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that the
land comprised in Khasra Nos.553 (5 Bigha), 561 (1 Bigha 5
Biswa) and 562 (10 Bigha), earlier recorded as Khasra No.257
admeasuring 17 Bighas, was Johad Refayaam. According to
learned AAG, during settlement proceedings, new khasra
numbers were assigned, but the nature of the land as Johad
Refayaam remained unchanged. He further submitted that no
valid allotment order exists on record to show lawful
conferment of khatedari rights over such land, nor could such
land have been allotted under the provisions of the Rajasthan
Tenancy Act.
(Uploaded on 16/02/2026 at 02:07:19 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/02/2026 at 08:43:40 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:7328-DB] (13 of 18) [SAW-287/2021]
28. Learned Additional Advocate General thus submitted that
neither the private respondents nor the appellant-petitioner
were eligible or entitled for allotment or regularisation of the
land in question, as land recorded as “Johad Refayaam” is
statutorily protected and cannot be transferred or regularised in
favour of any individual.
29. Lastly, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that
the action taken by the revenue authorities is lawful, justified
and well within their jurisdiction, and that the impugned orders
do not call for any interference by this Court and the Learned
single bench has rightly not interfered with the orders passed
by revenue authorities.
30. We have considered the submissions made at the Bar and gone
through the relevant record of the case and impugned
judgment dated 06.04.2021
31. From a conjoint reading of the survey records of Samvat 2002
and the land records of Samvat 2011-2012, it clearly emerges
that the land comprised in the erstwhile of Khasra No.257,
admeasuring 17 bighas, situated in Rohi Khudi, Tehsil
Sujangarh, stood recorded as “Johad Refayaam”, i.e., a public
utility water source, as on 15.08.1947. The said entry
unmistakably denotes that the land was reserved for public use
as a water body. The revenue record further reflects that out of
the total area, 16 biswas was recorded as uncultivable land
forming part of the pond itself, whereas the remaining 16
bighas and 4 biswas was shown as barren land surrounding the
said water body. The classification itself clearly establishes the
(Uploaded on 16/02/2026 at 02:07:19 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/02/2026 at 08:43:40 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:7328-DB] (14 of 18) [SAW-287/2021]
existence of a johad over a defined portion of the land, together
with its associated area forming part of the water system.
32. The material placed on record further reveals that the
husband/father of Performa respondents Nos.3 to 6, in active
collusion with officials of the Land Management and Revenue
Department, succeeded in getting the land comprised in old
Khasra No.257–later renumbered as Khasra Nos.553, 560, 561
and 562–recorded in his name, despite the land being recorded
as a public water source. As per area calculations, the original
Khasra No.257 measuring 17 bighas was subsequently split into
the aforesaid new khasra numbers, including Khasra No.560,
which represented the johad portion.
33. It is further borne out from the record that the
husband/father of respondents Nos.3 to 6 executed a sale deed
dated 14.06.1976 in favour of appellant-petitioner – Baluram,
transferring 16 bighas and 5 biswas of land out of the said
khasra. This transaction was later validated through Mutation
entry No.69 dated 12.11.1981. In the subsequent Jamabandi of
Samvat 2063, appellant-petitioner came to be recorded as
khatedar of the disputed land, and on 07.06.2005, he even
mortgaged the said land with the State Bank of Bikaner and
Jaipur, Salasar Branch.
34. However, the record unequivocally establishes that from
Samvat 2002 till Samvat 2012, the land under the original
Khasra No.257 retained its character as public land in the
nature of a “Johad Refayaam” meant for public use, benefit
and welfare. Such land squarely falls within the category of
(Uploaded on 16/02/2026 at 02:07:19 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/02/2026 at 08:43:40 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:7328-DB] (15 of 18) [SAW-287/2021]
restricted land under Section 16 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act,
1955, over which no khatedari or tenancy rights can legally
accrue. Despite this statutory embargo, during the settlement
operations of Samvat 2028, the Land Management Department,
in collusion with the private individuals concerned, illegally
recorded the land in the name of Narendra Singh, and
thereafter permitted its transfer in favour of appellant-
petitioner.
35. The subsequent sale deed dated 14.06.1976 and the
mutation sanctioned on 12.12.1981 are thus clearly vitiated,
being founded upon an illegal conferment of rights over land
which was statutorily protected and incapable of private
ownership or transfer. The approval of mutation after a lapse of
nearly five years further reflects the casual and unlawful
manner in which public land was allowed to pass into private
hands.
36. A perusal of the settlement records of Samvat 2002 and
Samvat 2011 leaves no manner of doubt that the land was
consistently recorded as a public water body. The change
effected in Samvat 2028, whereby new Khasra Nos.553, 561
and 562 were recorded in the name of Narendra Singh without
any lawful basis, was ex facie illegal. Consequently, the
subsequent transfer in favour of present appellant – Baluram
and the conferment of tenancy rights through Mutation entry
No.69 are nullifies in the eyes of law, being in direct
contravention of Section 16 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act,
1955.
(Uploaded on 16/02/2026 at 02:07:19 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/02/2026 at 08:43:40 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:7328-DB] (16 of 18) [SAW-287/2021]
Meaning and Legal Description of “Gair Mumkin Johad
Refayaam”
The expression “Gair Mumkin Johad Refayaam” has a well-
defined meaning in revenue jurisprudence and land records:
a) “Gair Mumkin” denotes land which is non-cultivable and
incapable of agricultural use.
b) “Johad” refers to a pond or water reservoir, including its
bed, embankments and functional area.
c) “Refayaam” signifies land meant for public use, welfare
and common benefit of the village community.
Thus, “Gair Mumkin Johad Refayaam” refers to land recorded
as a non-cultivable public water body, including its
catchment and appurtenant area, reserved exclusively for
public purposes such as water conservation, drinking water
and ecological balance and to conserve the fauna and flora of
the area concerned. Such land Vests in the State for public
use, is protected under Section 16 of the Rajasthan Tenancy
Act, 1955, cannot be allotted, regularized, sold or transferred
in favour of any private individual, and cannot legally confer
khatedari or tenancy rights under any circumstance. Any
entry, allotment or transfer made in derogation of this
classification is void-ab-initio and liable to be cancelled, with
restoration of the land to its original public character.
37. Upon a careful reappraisal of the material available on record,
this Court holds that the land comprised in erstwhile Khasra
No.257, admeasuring 17 bighas, situated at Village Khudi,
Tehsil Sujangarh, District Churu, was recorded in the settlement
(Uploaded on 16/02/2026 at 02:07:19 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/02/2026 at 08:43:40 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:7328-DB] (17 of 18) [SAW-287/2021]
records of Samvat 2002 and Samvat 2011 as “Johad
Refayaam”, being a public water body meant for common use
and welfare of the villagers. This Court further holds that such
land falls within the category of “Gair Mumkin Johad Refayaam”,
being non-cultivable public utility land, over which no khatedari
or tenancy rights could legally accrue in view of the express bar
contained in Section 16 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955.
38. Having heard learned counsel for the appellants and the
respondent – State as well as having perused the findings
recorded by the learned Single Judge, this Court finds no
infirmity, illegality or perversity in the impugned order dated
06.04.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge affirming the
orders passed by the learned Revenue Authorities. The land in
question having been conclusively found to be Johad Refayaam,
which is a prohibited, and common land, no right, title or
interest could accrue in favour of the appellant-petitioner
merely on the basis of erroneous revenue entries made in
favour of his predecessor-in-title or in his favour or passage of
time. Such land is not amenable to allotment, and the bar of
limitation cannot operate against protection of a valuable
natural resource in light of a conjoint reading of the precedent
law laid down in Jagpal Singh & Ors. (supra), Abdul Rahman
(supra), Suo Moto Vs. State of Rajasthan (supra), Gulab
Kothari (supra) and Kanti Lal (supra).
39. The learned Single Judge has rightly applied the binding
precedents governing the field, and the judgments relied upon
(Uploaded on 16/02/2026 at 02:07:19 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/02/2026 at 08:43:40 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:7328-DB] (18 of 18) [SAW-287/2021]
by the appellants do not advance their case. Hence, no
interference is warranted in the present appeal.
40. Consequently, the Special Appeal is dismissed. All pending
applications, if any, also stand dismissed.
(CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA),J (VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
Kartik Dave/C.P. Goyal/-
(Uploaded on 16/02/2026 at 02:07:19 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/02/2026 at 08:43:40 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)