BHAGWAN SAHAY Vs. STATE GOVT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners assailing the orders dated 26/09/2018, 28/09/2018 and 14/01/2019, rejecting reference made by the Collector, making amendments and rejecting review petition filed by the petitioners respectively.

(2.) The case set up by the petitioners is that vide registered sale deed dated 26/11/1973 father of the petitioners sold piece of land of ten Khasras measuring 15 Bighas 10 Biswas having corresponding seven new Khasra numbers measuring 3.88 hectares in favour of the respondent no.2. It is submitted that the petitioners' father is from Scheduled Caste while respondent no.2 is a member of Scheduled Tribe. On 03/10/1975, the Sarpanch, gram Panchayat, Bhankrota sanctioned mutation on the basis of the aforesaid sale deed. On 17/03/1990, the respondent no.2 filed an application before the Assistant Settlement Officer for issuing Settlement Parcha in her name and for entering her name in revenue records. On 20/03/1990, the Assistant Settlement Officer made observations with regard to sale of land from SC person to ST but further observed that such mutation could not be cancelled by the department and approved the mutation in favour of the respondent no.2 w.e.f. 1973. After 34 years, the petitioners approached the revenue authorities on 20/07/2007 seeking mutation of the land in their favour after death of their father Ramchandra and an application was submitted to the Collector by them on 16/08/2007 alleging violation of Section 42(b) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 and to make a reference to the Board of Revenue under Section 82 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 for seeking cancellation of the mutation dated 03/10/1975. The Collector registered the Reference No.133/2007 and after hearing of the affected parties sent the reference to the Board of Revenue vide its order dated 16/11/2016 seeking cancellation of mutation dated 03/10/1975. The Board of Revenue rejected the reference vide its order dated 26/09/2018 on the ground of extraordinary delay and latches. Certain corrections were made in its order vide order dated 28/09/2018. The review petition was preferred by the petitioners wherein written submissions were also filed. The Board of Revenue, however, rejected the review petition vide its order dated 14/01/2019.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Board of Revenue did not give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and the order was passed at their back only on the ground of limitation although limitation does not apply to the provisions of Section 82 of the Act of 1956. Learned counsel further submitted that name of counsel for the petitioners was falsely written in the order-sheet whereas the fact is that the petitioners' counsel was conveyed on 06/09/2018 that the next date of hearing was 12/12/2018. It is submitted that the Board of Revenue has preponed the date and without hearing counsel for the petitioners passed the order. It is submitted further that on 28/09/2018 again, the petitioners' counsel was not heard while making corrections. It is also stated that on 28/09/2018, there was strike of the staff of the Board of Revenue and therefore, the petitioners filed an application on 02/11/2018 seeking review of the order dated 26/09/2018 read with order dated 28/09/2018. However, the same was rejected vide order dated 14/01/2019 and therefore, feeling aggrieved, the present writ petition has been filed.