DEEPA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed for declaring Sec. 82, Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (hereinafter to be called 'the Act) as ultra vires of Articles 14 and 300A of-the Constitution of India and for quashing the order dated 6-12-1988 (Annex.-13) of the Collector, Pali referring the matter under Sec. 82 of the Act for restoring the entries in the revenue record in respect of the disputed land in the name of Charbhuja Temple, order dated 23-7-1990 (Annex.-14) accepting the reference, order dated 3-8-1991 (Annex.-17) effecting mutation in favour of Charbhuja Temple and entries Annex.-18. made in Jamabandi Khasra in respect of the disputed land relating to the Smt. Years 2046-49.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this writ petition may. by summarised thus. The respondent No.5 Ram Chandra moved an application before the Collector, Pali on Feb. 25, 1987 averring that the disputed land was in the khatedari of the temple, it was given to Devji (father of the petitioner Deepa) for cultivation on Panti basis,' Deepa manipulated to get his name entered in place of Charbhuja temple in the revenue records in respect of the disputed land, the Collector made reference under Sec. 82 of the Act by his order dated 6-12-1988 (Annex.-13]' an the Board of Revenue accepted the reference by its order dated 23-7-1990 (Annex.-14)

(3.) At the commencement of the arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner did not press the relief sought in the writ petition for declaring Sec. 82. Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 as ultra vires. He contended that the respondent No.5 Ram Chandra filed an application under Sec. 177, Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter to be called the Act of 1955) against Deepa in the year 1963, it was dismissed the order of dismissal was confirmed in Revision No.2/64/Pali by the Board of Revenue vide its order dated June 14, 1965, as such this order operates as res judicata and the learned Member, Revenue Board, Ajmer seriously erred to ignore it. He further contended that in the Khasra Girdawaris of Smt. Years 1996-99 (Annex.-1), 20-18-21 (Annex.-2), 2022-25 (Annex.-3) and Khatoni Smt Years 2018-21 (Annex.-4) and 2026-2049 (Annex.-5) and also in the settlement slip Annex.-6, the petitioner has been shown as a tenant. He also contended that the disputed land was resumed under Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952 (hereinafter to be called the Act of 1952). He lastly relied upon sub-para (3) of para 57 of the decision of the larger Bench (five Honourable Members of the Board of Revenue) reported as Shri Shiv Ram Vs. Shri Mesha, 1987 R.R.D. 261.