NIRANJAN DAS Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE AJMER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) THE petitioners are transferee of land allotted to one Nanak Ram on 16. 10. 57. Nanak Ram had executed a Power of Attorney in favour of Shyamlal who had sold the land in question to the petitioners on different dates.

(3.) IT has been contended by Mr. Bhandari, learned counsel for the petitioner that Board of Revenue has seriously erred in not noticing the fact the transfers in favour of petitioner has taken place prior to order dt. 5. 1. 68, on the basis of which alone the said order has been made resuming the land allotted to Nanak Ram in favour of the State. By noticing incorrect date of transfers subsequent to date of resumption, the decision of the Board of Revenue has been seriously affected on merits. IT was also contended by Mr. Bhandari that Board of Revenue has not considered that in view of provisions of Sec. 13-A, the transactions made in violation of Sec. 13 were liable to be considered for regularisation. By not considering the provisions of law and giving effect to it by validating the sales made in favour of the petitioners the rights of the petitioners have been seriously affected. According to learned counsel these errors are patent on the face of order.