BALMUKAND Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE FOR RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for writ under Article 226 of the Constitution, against a judgment and order of the Board of Revenue dated the 28th November, 1960.

(2.) IT is unnecessary to state the facts leading up to this writ application at any length, because, in our opinion, it can be finally disposed of on a short point relating to limitation. Suffice it to state that the dispute is about Khatedari rights with respect to field No. 302 measuring 105 Bighas odd in village Rampura, Tehsil itawa, District Kotah. One Mst. Gendi was admittedly the lastholder of this field as 'muafidar'. She appears to have died some time in 1945-46. The petitioner's case is that he was entered as a Sub-tenant of this field in the revenue papers right from 1945-46. It further appears that an inquiry was made by the revenue department as to who the heirs of the deceased Mst. Gendi were if any. The commissioner of Kotah eventually found that there was none, and, therefore, the grant was resumed to the State. The petitioner then made an application for the grant of Khatedari rights to him on the 26th August, 1957. This application was accepted by the Sub Divisional Officer by his order dated tha 12th May, 1958. It further appears that Birdilal respondent had also applied for allotment of this land on the 3rd December, 1954, and on an inquiry made by him, the Collector informed the said respondent on the 4th July, 1958, that the land had been entered as Khatedari of the petitioner. Thereupon he (Birdilal) filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Kotah, which was allowed on the 2nd September, 1959. A second appeal was then taken by the petitioner to the Board of Revenue which was dismissed by its order dated the 28th November, 1960, and it is this order which is being challenged before us.

(3.) TWO points appear to have been raised before the Board. The first is that Birdilal respondent before it had no right to prefer an appeal against the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer dated the 12th May. 1958, The second was that in any case the appeal was barred by time, and, therefore, it should have been dismissed by the commissioner on that ground alone. Both these points were repelled by the Board. As to the first, it was of the opinion that Birdilal was and could be deemed to be an interested person. As to the second, we should like to reproduce its finding in its own words which is as follows: