BANAMALI PANDA Vs. MEMBER BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has prayed to quash orders under Annexures 3 & 4 Annexure -3 is the order passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Jaipur in O.E.A. Revision Case No 4 of 1994 on 03.11.1998 & Annexure 4 is the Order Dated 29.06.2001 passed by the Member, Board of Revenue in O.E.A. Revision Case No. 2 of 1999.

(2.) PETITIONER 's claim is that his father was the recorded tenant of Plot Nos. 515 and 516 of Khata No. 249. According to the Record of Rights of the year 1911, the total area under those two plots was measuring Ac. 0.30 decimals. He does not dispute the Record of Rights prepared in the year 1927 -1928 in which the area was reduced to Ac. 0.26 decimals, i.e. Ac. 0.13 decimals for each of the plots. After vesting of the Estate, Petitioner filed O.E.A. Case No. 22782 of 1963 -64 for settlement of Ac. 0.26 decimals of land in Plot Nos. 515 and 516. The O E A. Collector -cum -Tahasildar, Jaipur allowed that application and settled the land to the extent of Ac. 0,26 decimals in favour of the father of the Petitioner. In the year 1986, Petitioner initiated this litigation with the claim that Ac. 0.04 decimals of land not recorded in the settlement during 1928 is still in the possession of the family and therefore that area also should be recorded in the name of the Petitioner. After long drawn legal battle in that respect by moving to the Member, Board of Revenue and coming to the High Court getting an order of remand to the Member, Board of Revenue and further an order of remand from the Board of Revenue to the Tahasildar, the matter was again enquired into and on the basis of the measurement made by the Amin in presence of the Petitioner but not the Opposite Parties, again order was passed by the Tahasildar on 23.07.1988 vide Annexure -1 for settlement of the disputed Ac. 0.04 decimals of land in favour of the Petitioner. Opposite Party No. 5 on getting information about the aforesaid order, agitated against that order before the Sub -Divisional Officer by filing O.E.A. Appeal No. 7 of 1988. Learned S.D.O. dismissed that appeal on the ground of non -joinder of necessary party, as per his Order Dated 19.04.1994. Opposite Party No. 5 then preferred O.E.A. Revision Case No. 4 of 1994 and on 03.11.1998, Learned A.D.M., Jaipur passed order under Annexure 3. In that order Learned A.D.M. held that loss of Ac. 0.04 decimals has not been properly verified to appertain to either of the two plots, the map has not been properly superimposed or considered nor the person, who is at loss because of the aforesaid order of further settlement was made a party to the proceeding and presence of such interested person was not sought for in course of further enquiry. Accordingly, he set aside the Order Dated 23.07.1988 passed by the Tahasildar -cum -O.E.A. Collector.

(3.) THOUGH Petitioner has not stated anything about the consolidation proceeding but in counter Opposite Party No. 5 in paragraph 2.12 has stated that in the consolidation proceeding only Ac. 0.26 decimals of the aforesaid two plots have been recorded in the name of the Petitioner and that Petitioner challenged that in an appeal and after being unsuccessful there, he has challenged the same in a consolidation revision and such consolidation revision is still pending on the ground that a stay order has been passed by this Court. On perusal of Order No. 3 dated 11.09.2001 in Misc. Case No. 10926 of 2001, we find that in this Writ Petition order was passed directing stay operation of the order in Annexures 3 and 4. There is no order to stay operation of consolidation proceedings and the Revisional Authority should therefore act accordingly.