RAMBHAROSI LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS have filed this writ petition against order/judgment of the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer, dt. 10.01.1995 by which a reference made to it by the District Collector, Bharatpur, has been accepted. The District Collector, Bharatpur, vide order dt. 24.05.1994, under Sec. 9 read with Section 82 of the Land Revenue Act, 1956, made aforesaid reference to learned Board of Revenue at the instance of Tehsildar, Bharatpur, as also the general public of Anaha Gate, Bharatpur, inter -alia on the premise that khatedari rights conferred upon petitioner Bhoori Singh in the land of Khasra No. 335 measuring one bigha and eight biswa situated at Bharatpur, by setting aside mutation attested in favour of other petitioners Rambharosi Lal and others on the basis of sale -deed executed in their favour by aforesaid Bhoori Singh. Contention of learned counsel for petitioner is that the petitioners were allotted the land in dispute in August, 1958 and mutation was attested in their favour on 28.04.1962. One Charanlal S/o Inder Narain filed a false suit against petitioner and secured a decree of specific performance and, in compliance whereof, mutation was attested in favour of Charanlal. Petitioner No. 1 thereupon transferred the land to petitioners No. 2 and 7, on the basis of which another mutation dt. 09.03.1971 was attested in their favour. The suit filed by Charanlal was dismissed and thereafter his appeal was dismissed by this Court and also by the Supreme Court. It was thereafter that an application under Rule 14(4) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Land for Agricultural Purposes) Rules, 1957 (for short, 'the Rules of 1957') was filed by the State Government before the District Collector seeking a reference to be made to the Board of Revenue. Initially reference was declined by the District Collector by order dt. 13.10.1992 but subsequently the District Collector by subsequent order dt. 24.05.1994 made the reference. The Board of Revenue accepted the reference mechanically.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners submitted that the allotment of the disputed land was made in favour of the petitioner on his application dt. 19.08.1958 on proposal of one Desh Raj, member of the allotment committee, which the Tehsildar has accepted. Since two members could form of the Advisory Committee and both of them were member of the Advisory Committee therefore formation was complete. Petitioner continuously remained in possession of the disputed land since then and was recorded khatedar tenant as per Section 19 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. Name of the petitioner was recorded in jamabandi of Samvat Years 2017 -2021, 2021 -2024 and 2026 -2029. The application for making reference was made about 30 years thereafter alleging that the petitioner Bhoori Singh was not eligible for allotment, being the Government Servant as post master in the Central Government. Learned Board of Revenue has mechanically allowed the reference. It is contended that petitioner Bhoori Singh has been continuously in possession of the land since 2015 and has been making payment of the land revenue. He acquired khatedari rights by virtue of Section 15 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, which has been completely ignored by learned Court below. It is argued that initially when the District Collector has declined to make interference, another application for making reference could not have been entertained and the District Collector was bound by his earlier order. The reference was made 34 years after the date of allotment. Therefore, reference could not have been accepted at the belated stage.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondents argued that the limitation would not apply in a case where allotment of the khatedari rights have been procured on the strength of fraud, misrepresentation and concealment. In the present case, allotment was made temporarily for a period of one year. The delay would not be an impediment for concealment of khatedari rights in view of the judgment of this Court in Sohan Kanwar vs. Board of Revenue and Others, : 2002 (1) WLC (Raj.) 415.