DEVA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of writ petition (No. 5041/13), the petitioners Deva Ram and others have questioned legality of judgment dated 4.2.13 passed by the Board of Revenue Rajasthan, whereby while accepting the reference made by the Additional Collector-II, Jodhpur vide order dated 23.12.08, the order passed by the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Kanasar sanctioning the mutation of the disputed land in the names of the petitioners, has been set aside. That apart, the petitioners have also questioned legality of order dated 10.12.12 of the Board of Revenue, whereby the respondent no.4 herein Kishna Ram, was directed to be impleaded as petitioner no.2 in the reference proceedings.

(2.) The petitioner Multana Ram, the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Kanasar, has filed the petition (No.2410/13) aggrieved by the order impugned passed by the Board of Revenue to the extent of directions issued to the Sub Divisional Officer, Phalodi and Tehsildar, Phalodi to lodge a police complaint inter alia against him in the concerned Police Station for the alleged fraudulent act.

(3.) The relevant facts are that Tehsildar, Phalodi made an application under Section 82 of Rajasthan Land Revenue Act,1956 (for short "the Act") before the Additional Collector (Second), Jodhpur, stating that the land measuring 132 bighas comprising khasra no.792 min. has been entered in the names of the petitioners herein vide mutation no.6 attested on 18.10.60, without there being any order of the competent authority allotting the land in their favour. It was contended that the mutation no.6 of village Raneri was sanctioned by Multana Ram, Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat fraudulently in favour of Reshma Ram and others, while wrongly mentioning in column no.16 of the mutation format that Tehsildar, Phalodi has conferred khatedari rights under Section 15 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short "the Act of 1955"), whereas, on inquiry being made, it was found that no such order was ever issued by Tehsildar, Phalodi. The Additional Collector on inquiry found the reference legally acceptable and accordingly, referred the matter to the Board of Revenue under Section 82 of the Act.