CMA 21/96 -Smt. Lalita Devi & Anr. Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. Judgment dt.21.5.09 1/3 S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.21/1996 Smt. Lalita Devi & Anr. Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of order : 21st May, 2009 PRESENT HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr. Parikshit Nayak for the appellants. Mr. Mukul Singhvi, Addl Government Counsel. ----- 1. This appeal is directed against the order of learned ADJ, Banswara dated 4.6.1994 whereby the learned trial court rejected the reference under Section 18 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act filed by the present appellants Smt. Lalita Devi w/o Chagan Lal and Kumari Tej Kanwar daughter of Shri Chagan Lal. 2. Mr. Parikshit Nayak, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that part of land was purchased by a registered sale deed from the respondent No.3, Rishi Shankar Nagar by the present appellants on 17.11.1969 for Rs.9251/- ad measuring 6 bighas of land out of which a portion of said 6 bighas of the land in question was acquired for construction of road by the respondent State besides the land of the respondent No.3 Rishi Shankar Nagar. He further submits that since the land in question was acquired by private negotiations and no mutation entries were made in favour of the present appellants in the revenue record on the basis of said registered sale deed dated 17.11.1969, therefore, the entire compensation for the CMA 21/96 -Smt. Lalita Devi & Anr. Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. Judgment dt.21.5.09 2/3 land in question acquired was directed to be paid to the said respondent No.3, Rishi Shankar Nagar. He has submitted that the learned court below has wrongly decided the title of the land in question in favour of the respondent No.3 whereas there was no dispute from his side about execution of the said registered sale deed in favour of the appellant on 17.11.1969. He has also referred to the statement of DW-3 Kripa Shankar brother of the respondent No.3 and his power of attorney holder, who has admitted that 6 bighas of land was sold by the respondent No.3 – Rishi Shankar to the present appellants. The statements were recorded by the learned court below on 6.10.1990. He, therefore, submits that the learned court below has erred in rejecting the reference application filed by the present appellants ignoring such registered sale deed in favour of the present appellants. 3. Having gone through the impugned order and record of the case and after hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that reference application filed by the present appellants under Section 18 of the Act was wrongly rejected by the learned court below. It appears that since the necessary revenue entries were not mutated in favour of the present appellants on the basis of registered sale deed dated 17.11.1969 prior to the acquisition in question, therefore, under the misconception, the present appellants were not held entitled to the compensation for portion of their land CMA 21/96 -Smt. Lalita Devi & Anr. Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. Judgment dt.21.5.09 3/3 acquired for the purpose of construction of road in question by the State PWD Department. It is well settled that mutation entries are mere fiscal entries for the purpose of collection of revenue and do not confer any title. The title of the land in question in the present case was conveyed to the present appellants on the basis of registered sale deed dated 17.11.1969 and in view of the fact that the road in question passed through the land of the present appellants as well and their land was also acquired for the purpose of said construction of road, the present appellants could not be deprived of the compensation to that extent. The learned court below appears to have wrongly decided the issue of title against the present appellants and rejected their application under Section 18 of the Act seeking reference. 4. Consequently the present appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 4.6.1994 is set aside and the matter is restored back to the learned trial court of ADJ, Banswara for deciding the reference application under Section 18 of the Act afresh on merits after giving opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties. No order as to costs. Copy of this judgment be sent to the opposite parties as well as to learned trial court. [ DR. VINEET KOTHARI ], J. itemNo.1 babulal