RAMESH CHANDRA Vs. CHANDRA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against order dated 25.6.13 passed by the Board of Revenue Rajasthan, Ajmer, whereby a revision petition preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 5.10.06 of Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner, cancelling the mutation of the disputed land recorded in favour of inter alia the petitioner vide order dated 23.12.85 passed by Tehsildar, Colonisation, Chhatargarh No.1, District Bikaner, has been dismissed.

(2.) The relevant facts are that father of the first respondent, Shri Amar Singh, was khatedar tenant of the disputed land which was acquired in the year 1982 for Mahajan Field Firing Range of Indian Army; the award was passed and the land was entered in the name of Government of India in the record of rights. The petitioner got the disputed land mutated in his favour vide mutation entry no.183 dated 23.185 on the basis of a sale deed alleged to have been executed in his favour in the year 1966 by khatedar tenant Hem Singh & Amar Singh sons of Kishan Singh, which is said to be a forged document. The mutation effected was questioned by the first respondent by way of appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer(SDO), Khajuwala. The appeal was dismissed by the appellate authority vide order dated 25.9.97. Aggrieved thereby, the second appeal preferred by the first respondent was allowed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner Division, Bikaner, vide order dated 5.10.06 and the mutation effected as aforesaid was set aside. Aggrieved thereby, the revision petition preferred by the petitioner herein stands dismissed by the Board of Revenue by the order impugned. Hence, this petition.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the disputed land was purchased by the petitioner from Amar Singh, the father of the first respondent by way of registered sale deed dated 25.4.66, the genuineness whereof cannot be disputed and thus, the mutation entry made by the Tehsildar on the basis of the sale deed in favour of the petitioner cannot be faulted with. Learned counsel submitted that as a matter of fact, the first respondent so as to grab the amount of compensation, questioned the legality of the mutation effected alleging the sale deed executed to be forged. Learned counsel submitted that the Additional Divisional Commissioner as also the Board of Revenue have not examined the validity of the transfer made keeping in view the provisions of Section 13A of Rajasthan Colonisation Act, 1954 (for short "the Act of 1954") and Section 15A of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short "the Act of 1955").