BHURI SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE predecessor in title of petitioners Narain Singh filed a suit for declaration against Smt. Gainda (predecessor in title of respondents No. 4 to 7) regarding the land in dispute situated in village Kakda Tehsil Deeg claiming to be in possession of the land since Svt. 2014 and acquired khatedari rights. Since despite service the defendant did not appear the Sub Divisional Officer Deeg proceeded exparte and decreed the suit vide judgment dated July 20, 1970. THE respondents filed first appeal on June 23, 1973 along with the application under Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963. On receiving notices the petitioners raised preliminary objections. THE appeal came to be dismissed vide judgment dated July 16, 1974. THEreafter the respondents filed second appeal before the Board of Revenue (for short `board'), who vide judgment dated November 11, 1982 dismissed the same holding that the respondents purchased the land in dispute from Gainda after institution of suit, therefore, the transaction was hit by the doctrine of lispendense. It was also held that Smt. Gainda belonged to Scheduled Caste whereas plaintiff belonged to caste Fauzdar, therefore there was violation of Section 42 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. THE State Government was not party to suit therefore the transfer of possession was in violation of Section 42. In the year 1973 the respondents 4 to 7 also filed a suit for declaring the decree dated July 20, 1970 as null and void. THE petitioner raised objection regarding maintainability of suit in revenue court. THE suit was dismissed vide judgment dated June 7, 1976. THE respondents filed another suit on July 19, 1983 August 4, 1983 for declaring the decree dated July 20, 1970 null and void. THE same was also dismissed in default on March 25, 1989.

(3.) DIVISION Bench of this Court in Anandi Lal vs. State of Rajasthan (1996 DNJ (Raj. 100) indicated that to permit exercise of revisional powers under Sections 82 and 232 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (for short `1956 Act') after unreasonable delay would amount putting imprimature of the courts on the unreasonable and arbitrary exercise of powers. In Mangi Lal vs. State of Rajasthan (1988 (1) WLC (Raj.) 625) has been obtained by fraud, the power of reference can be exercised even after the unreasonable delay.