PANI DEVI Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:-

(2.) Brief facts, as stated in the writ petition, are that the present controversy arises out of mutation No. 23 dtd. 20/9/1962 sanctioned by the Gram Panchayat, Guda Kala, Tehsil Sojat. After a lapse of about 43 years, respondent-Narayan filed an appeal on 11/8/2005 (Annex.2) before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sojat, assailing the said mutation on the ground that the Gram Panchayat lacked jurisdiction to sanction mutation in view of Sec. 19 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. The learned SDO registered the appeal subject to limitation and, vide judgment dtd. 15/9/2006, dismissed the same holding that the appeal was grossly time-barred, no sufficient cause was shown for condonation of delay, mutation proceedings are fiscal in nature, and that rights of recorded khatedars and third-party transferees cannot be unsettled in summary proceedings. Aggrieved, respondent-Narayan preferred a second appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Jodhpur, who allowed the appeal by judgment dtd. 11/3/2010, observing that the mutation entry suffered from clerical defects and that the Gram Panchayat had no jurisdiction, as the competent authority under Sec. 19 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act is the Assistant Collector and mutation could thereafter be sanctioned only by the Tehsildar. Challenging the said order, the petitioners and others filed a revision before the Board of Revenue contending, inter alia, that there was no finding on perversity or arbitrariness in the SDO's order, no proper condonation of an inordinate delay of 43 years, and that third-party rights created through registered sale deeds could not be disturbed in fiscal proceedings. The Board of Revenue, however, dismissed the revision by judgment dtd. 21/4/2017 holding that the mutation was illegal and void ab initio, could be questioned at any time, and that respondent-Narayan was a minor at the time of sanction of mutation in 1962, rendering the mutation against the interest of a minor.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondents at the outset submits that the order dtd. 21/4/2017 (Annex.7) passed by the Board of Revenue and the order dtd. 11/3/2010 (Annex.5) passed by the Additional Commission have rightly been passed, as the Gram Panchayat did not have the jurisdiction to mutate the land in question in favour of the petitioners. He submits that in accordance with Sec. 19 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1955 ('Act of 1955), the power of mutating the land vests only with the Assistant Collector. He submits that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.