DAL CHAND Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE FOR RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Rajendra Prasad, learned counsel for the appellants. None appears on behalf of the respondents, as the record reveals, the service on them is complete. Having regard to the year of registration of the appeal, we are not inclined to defer the adjudication and disposal thereof.

(2.) SHORTLY put, the facts relevant for the disposal of the present appeal are that the respondent No. 5 herein instituted a suit in the Court of the Assistant Collector, Bharatpur along with an application for temporary injunction against the appellants questioning the purchase by them of land pertaining to Khasras No. 201, 202, 208, 209, 210 and 211 of village Dhehari from its recorded Khatedari of Shri Kalua by a registered sale deed dt. 20.6.1990 and also to annul their claim to have their names registered as owner thereof in the revenue records. As the learned Assistant Collector, Bharatpur by order dt. 22.6.1990 on the prayer for temporary injunction, restrained the appellants to alienate the land and also directed them to maintain status quo and further restrained them from get their names in the mutation, they preferred Appeal No. 547/1990 before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bharatpur and it, vide order dt. 14.1.1992 interfered with the restraint as above. The Appellate Authority also found the appellants to be in lawful possession of the land involved. In substance therefore, the prayer for temporary injunction made against the appellants was vacated. The respondent No. 5 being aggrieved unsuccessfully, approached the learned Board of Revenue for Rajasthan with Review Petition No. 24/1993 which was rejected on 25.11.1993. Consequent upon this, the jurisdictional Tehsildar sanctioned mutation in favour of the appellants qua the land involved. It was at the stage that the respondent No. 5 preferred an appeal before the Sub -Divisional Officer, Bharatpur questioning the legality of the orders of mutation. The appeals having been allowed the appellants, filed second appeal before the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur which interfered with the decision of the Sub -Divisional Officer, Bharatpur.

(3.) MR . Rajendra Prasad, the learned counsel for the appellants while tracing the factual back ground has argued that the learned Board of Revenue for Rajasthan having by its judgment and order dt. 25.11.1993 rejected the respondent No. 5's revision petition before it on the aspect of the injunction, it ought not to have on same set of facts taken a contrary view on the aspect of mutation involving the same land. According to the learned counsel, having regard to the constricted scope of scrutiny of the learned Board of Revenue for Rajasthan in the revision proceedings before it in terms of Section 84 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (for short hereinafter referred to as "the Act") in absence of any jurisdictional error in the adjudication of the appellants' appeal by the learned Additional Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur. The impugned order dt. 31.5.1999 is non -est and that therefore, the learned Single Judge fell in error in not interfering therewith.