HARI SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FIRST five matters commencing from 2289/88 to 5237/90 were on board today for hearing. Remaining matters filed by Mr. Bishnoi were not on the Board today. However, the common point was involved and all these petitions were arising out of the common order passed by the Revenue Board, therefore, the rest of the petitions, which were not listed on board today, were called for and decided by this common order. As the main writ petition No. 2289/88 was there on the board, it was heard. It was also agreed by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties that the decision rendered in this petition will cover the fate of other petitions.

(2.) IT is the case of the petitioners that settlement operations were decided in their favour way back in Samvat year 2000 i.e. in the year 1943 A.D. and on 15.9.51 (Annex. 1), the Assistant Record Officer passed the order against which objections were filed. After hearing all the concerned persons, the Collector decided the matter and ordered the Tehsildar to make an entry in revenue record in favour of the petitioners (Annex. 2). The same was challenged by the private respondents in appeals before the Additional Commissioner, who dismissed their appeals by an order dated 15.1.60 (Annex. 7). Second appeals were also dismissed by the Revenue Board on 11.6.60 (Annex. 8). It was not carried further by the private respondents. After prolonged litigation, the petitioners succeeded in getting the entries made in revenue record by the Tehsildar in their favour as per the order (Annex. 2) passed by the Collector. Against the recording of entries in favour of the petitioners, the private contesting respondents preferred appeals before the Sub -Divisional Officer, which were dismissed on 10.10.79 (Annex. 16). Second appeals were filed before the Revenue Appellate Authority by the private respondents, were allowed on 7.1.82 (Annex. 17) by a common order and the R.A.A. directed the Collector to re -open the matter which was already decided by him (Collector) on 19.3.59 (Annex. 2). 'Aggrieved by that order passed by the R.A.A., the petitioners preferred revisions before the Revenue Board. The revenue Board disposed of 42 revisions by a common order dated 31.7.87 (Annex. 18). In para No. 7 of its order, the Revenue Board observed that: It is obvious that the order dated 19.3.59 of the Collector, Pali was made in a matter relating to settlement after the closure of settlement operation and the Revenue Appellate Authority had no jurisdiction in the matter quite apart from the fact that the order dated 19.3.59 had acquired finality appeals against that having been rejected by the Additional Settlement Commissioner and the Board of Revenue. It also held that: The order dated 19.3.59 of the Collector Pali is not only final but has merged in the order of the Board of Revenue. The Revenue Appellate Authority therefore could not have gone behind the decision into facts and evidence led before the Collector and to seek to have the matter re -opened. It has also held that: For the reasons the judgment dated 7.1.82 of the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jodhpur deserves to be set aside. But, the Revenue Board did not rest there. It proceeded to observe in para No. 10 that: On merits it would be seen that the order dated 19.3.59 of the Collector Pali was sought to be implemented in 1971 by which time jagirs had been resumed and all kinds of intermediaties abolished and the peasant cultivator stood in direct relation to the State. It should be obvious that by 1971 not only Jagirdar, Juna Jagirdar and their Pasayatdar but also the order dated 19.3.59 of the Collector Pali had become anachronisms. The purpose of mutation proceedings is to update land records and an acachronism can find no place in these proceedings. The Jagirdar and June Jagirdar had been replaced by the State and in 1971 there was no question of replacing the entry in favour of the State in the record of rights by the entry in favour of Juna Jagirdar. That being so, there was still less no question of replacing persons recorded as khatedars by the erstwhile Juna Jagirdar as Khatedars in the record of rights. The order dated 19.3.59 of the Collector Pali itself did not require this. In other words no action could have been taken by way of mutation proceedings on the order of the Collector, Pali dated 19.3.59 in 1971. The mutations in question were therefore misconceived and also deserved to be set aside.

(3.) MR . Lodha, learned Counsel appearing for the private respondents in main writ petition No. 2289/88 raised a very strong objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petitions. He submitted that when there were in all 42 appeals, revisions and review petitions, the petitioners ought to have filed 42 writ petitions and not only these petitions. Therefore, he submitted that without going into the merits of the case, only on this ground, all these petitions be dismissed.