RAMCHANDER Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed seeking quashing of judgment of the Board of Revenue (for short 'the Board') dtd. 19/7/2000 and order dtd. 26/9/2000 accepting the reference made by the Additional Collector and dismissing the review of the petitioners respectively.

(2.) The brief facts are that on 15/9/1953 the land situated in Khasra No.812 (amended Khasra No. 480) situated in Village Samwatsar, Tehsil Kishangarh was allotted for cultivation to Moolchand Ahir (father of the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 and husband of petitioner No.3). The allotted land measured 15 bighas and the allotment was on the condition that a well is to be developed on the land within a period of one year from date of allotment. As per the petitioners, since 1953 they are in cultivating possession of the land-in-question. On 14/4/1986, petitioners instituted a suit under Ss. 88, 89 and 91 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act of 1955') as the then Tehsildar was interfering in the possession of the petitioners. The suit was decreed on 31/3/1987 and the petitioners were conferred Khatedari rights of the land-in-question. The judgment and decree remained unchallenged as the defendants choose not to file the appeal. Consequent to the decree, mutation was sanctioned in favour of the petitioners in April, 1987. On 21/2/1994, Additional Collector, Ajmer made a reference to the Board under Sec. 232 of the Act. The reference was on the ground that allotment of the land-in-question was in violation of the provisions of Sec. 16 (6) of the Act of 1955, as the land allotted was a 'Gair Mumkin Talab'. The reference was accepted on 20/1/1996 holding that Khatedari rights of the land-in-question cannot be conferred. The review filed by the petitioners was accepted on 19/8/1998. The reference was again accepted on 19/7/2000 and the judgment and decree dtd. 31/3/1987 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (for short 'SDO Court') was set aside. The review filed by the petitioners was rejected on 26/9/2000, hence, the present petition.

(3.) The contention of the senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners is that the allotment of the land was in 1953 and the Act of 1955 came into force w.e.f. 24/3/1955. The Board erred in accepting the reference. Submission is that the photocopy of the letter of allotment produced during the proceedings was brushed aside without verification from the record.