SAYAD KHATUN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against order dated 04.02.2009 passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer ('Board'), whereby, a reference under Sec. 232 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 read with Sec. 82 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 has been accepted and the exchange accepted by the Colonization Commissioner, Chhatargarh ('Commissioner') by order dated 16.04.1987 has been quashed and set aside.

(2.) The land in question was allocated to one Ahmed Khan by order dated 16.04.1987 by the Commissioner; Ahmed Khan transferred the land by registered sale deed to Bachan Singh on 07.02.1990; a part of the land was transferred by Bachan Singh to the petitioner on 11.03.1993 and mutation was attested in petitioner's favour and it is claimed that petitioner is in possession of the land in question. The original allottee Ahmed Khan died on 02.08.1993; where after, the Additional Collector, Bikaner ('Collector') made a reference to the Board on 18.09.2001 regarding the order dated 16.04.1987 passed by the Commissioner accepting the exchange in favour of Ahmed Khan.

(3.) It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that Ahmed Khan had died on 02.08.1993, despite transfer of the land in petitioner's favour in the year 1993 itself and the mutation having been attested in her favour, in the reference proceedings, which were initiated in the year 2001, no notice was issued to the petitioner; deceased Ahmed Khan was impleaded as a party to the said reference, notices were sent by the Board to said Ahmed Khan, who was not served and based on drawing presumption of service on account of non-return of registered post Acknowledgment Due, ex parte order dated 04.02.2009 was passed by the Board setting aside the order dated 16.04.1987 while accepting the reference made by the Collector. Several submissions were also made by learned counsel for the petitioner on the merits of maintainability of the reference itself. It was prayed that the order dated 04.02.2009 deserves to be quashed and set aside.