M/S VISHAL FARMS v. STATE OF RAJ AND ORS

Order 06/02/2017 Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is a partnership firm and there are two partners namely Smt. Anjana Badhera and Smt. Asha Khandelwal. The petitioner-firm purchased agricultural land bearing Khasra No.

1041 to 1045, 1047 to 1050, 1064, 1065, 1068 to 1070 and 1074, admeasuring 6.38 hectare through registered sale deed dated 03.12.2004. On 17.08.2015, the partners agreed to change constitution of the firm and Smt. Anjana Bhadera got herself retired from the firm and Shri Omprakash Khandelwal entered into the partnership. Vide deed dated 17.08.2015 name of Smt.

Anjana Bhadera was substituted with Shri Omprakash Khandelwal.

(2 of 3) [CW-1520/2017] Old partners of the firm moved an application in the office of Tehsildar, Tehsil Sanganer, Jaipur(for short 'the Tehsildar') for making necessary corrections/changes in the revenue record, but no action was taken by the Tehsildar. The petitioner served a notice in response to which Additional Collector wrote a letter to Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sangnaer along with copy of the notice served by the petitioner and asked him to submit factual report thereon. Thereafter, again a letter was sent by the petitioner's counsel on 19.10.2016, drawing attention of the Tehsildar about the matter, but no action was taken. It is contended that when there was change in the constitution of the firm and all necessary formalities were completed with regard to change in the constitution, then it was bounden duty of the Revenue Officers to make necessary entries in this regard, but the Revenue officers have failed to perform their duties. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Tehsildar has illegally withheld application of the petitioner for correction and necessary changes in the entries in revenue record pertaining to the agriculture land of M/s. Vishal Farms, mentioned above on the plea that the dissolution deed of the firm is not registered. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Tehsildar would not be justified in refusing to make necessary entries and changes in revenue records on the aforesaid premise because dissolution of the firm is not required to be registered in view of the provisions of Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act, 1908 read with Section 50 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932.

(3 of 3) [CW-1520/2017] Having regard to the facts aforesaid, the petitioner is required to approach the Tehsildar, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur along with copy of this order, who shall consider and decide the application of the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of approaching of the petitioner to him by passing speaking order.

With the aforesaid direction, writ petition stands disposed off.

(MOHAMMAD RAFIQ)J.

Manoj