SURAJ MAL Vs. PURUSHOTTAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By these writ petitions, a challenge is made to the order dated 22.07.1997 passed by the Additional Collector, Jaipur and the order dated 29.04.2014 passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer.

(2.) The non-petitioner Purshottam preferred an appeal against the order of Nayab Tehsildar. It was to challenge the mutation where name of Heeralal was entered in the revenue record in reference to Section 19 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (in short "the Act of 1955"). The appeal was allowed by the Additional Collector vide his order dated 201997. Heeralal preferred an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner and the order dated 201997 passed by the Additional Collector was set aside. The non-petitioner Purshottam preferred a revision petition before the Board of Revenue and has been allowed.

(3.) Learned counsel for petitioners submit that part of land was belonging to Shyobux and on his death, it was recorded in the name of Heeralal, being natural son. Heeralal sold the land to Surajmal. The non-petitioner Purshottam preferred an appeal under Section 75 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act to challenge the mutation where name of Heeralal was entered for of the land. The appeal was allowed ignoring the delay of 30 years. It was even in ignorance of the fact that revenue suits have been preferred by the parties and therein only rights of the parties would be determined. In the fiscal proceedings of mutation, title of the parties cannot be determined.