RAJJAK Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Assistant Collector, Deedwana by the judgment and decree dated 18.11.1985 declared the petitioner a tenant for land situated in Khasra No. 351 measuring 171 bighas and 3 biswas and in Khasra No. 353 for the land measuring 121 bighas and 3 biswas in Village Dujjar, Tehsil Ladnu. The suit was decreed on basis of the compromise arrived at between the petitioner and Smt. Mangudi W/o Dhanna Ram by caste Meghwal. Before decree of the suit the Assistant Collector by appointing a Commissioner verified the fact about the possession of the petitioner on the land in question from last about 36-37 years. In pursuant to the judgment and decree dated 18.11.1985 necessary correction was made in revenue records and the petitioner was entered as tenant of the land in dispute.

(2.) The Addl. Collector, Nagaur by his order dated 31.3.1994 made a reference under Section 232 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act of 1955) to the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer to examine the validity and propriety of the judgment and decree dated 18.11.1985. The Board of Revenue by its judgment dated 27.3.1995 accepted the reference by quashing the judgment and decree dated 18.11.1985. The Board of Revenue held that the land in dispute was in tenancy of Dhanna Ram, a member of Scheduled Caste, therefore, merely on basis of long possession no declaration with regard to tenancy of the petitioner could have been made being in contravention of provisions of Section 42 of the Act of 1955.

(3.) By the instant petition for writ a challenge is given by the petitioner to the judgment dated 27.3.1995 passed by the Board of Revenue on the ground that there was no just and valid reason for making a reference under Section 232 of the Act of 1955 after a lapse of more than nine years after passing judgment and decree dated 18.11.1985. It is also contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the judgment and decree dated 18.11.1985 is not an outcome of any fraud or fraudulent tactics. The petitioner has substantiated his contention by placing reliance upon the Division Bench's judgment of this Court in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Teja & Ors. { reported in 2005 (4) RDD 921} wherein it is held that no reference could be made after unreasonable delay in absence of positive case of fraud on account of collusion between the public officer and the private party.