BALMUKAND SHARMA Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India for a writ of certiorari against the judgment and order of the Board of Revenue dated 28th November, 1960.

(2.) IN village Rampura, Tehsil Itawa, there is field No. 302 measuring 105 bighas 13 biswas which was in Muafi of Mst. Gaindi. It is alleged by the petitioner that this field was let out to him by Mst. Gaindi in the year 1945 on a rental of Rs. 181/6 and since then he has been in its cultivatory possession. IN 1957, the Settlement Department also issued a Parcha (Ex. P-l) in his favour. IN Smt. year 2002 he was entered as a sub-tenant in the Khata. Mst. Gaindi died in the year 1945-46. On her death an enquiry was held by the Revenue Department for mutation purposes to find out her real successors. Ultimately the Commissioner of Kotah decided by his order dated 3rd December, 1956 that Mst. Gandi had died heirless and so the grant was liable to be resumed to the State. During the pendency of the aforesaid proceedings, the revenue authorities wanted to dispossess the petitioner. But upon his representation the Collector, Kotah, passed an order on 12th June, 1954 that the petitioner, who had agreed to pay double the rent should not be dispossessed till the conclusion of the said proceedings. After the land was ordered to be resumed, the petitioner made an application under sec. 19 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act (hereinafter called the Act) on 26th August, 1957 to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Kotah, to grant Khatedari rights of the disputed land to him. The Sub-Divisional Officer Kotah by his order dated 12th May, 1958 granted Khatedari rights in respect of field No. 302 to the petitioner vide Ex. P-4 and in consequence of it the petitioner's , name was entered as Khatedar by means of the proceedings in the transfer register of village Rampura vide Ex. P-5. Then one Birdhilal, who had ill-will against the petitioner, along with respondents Nos. 5 to 18 preferred an appeal against the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 12th May, 1958, on 28th October, 1958. This appeal was allowed by the Commissioner, Kotah, even though the petitioner had contended before him that Birdhilal and the other respondents had no locus standi to file the appeal and the appeal was barred by limitation having been filed after the expiry of the prescribed period of limitation. The petitioner then preferred a second appeal before the Board of Revenue, but the same was dismissed on 28th Nov. , 1960.