HANUMAN PRASAD Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The brief facts of the case are that the land in question originally belonged to deity of Hanumanji Maharaj and Ram Sahai Swami was its priest (Pujari). It appears that sons of Ram Sahai had sold the said land to the appellant and on the basis of the sale -deed, a mutation was entered in the name of the appellant. The Settlement Officer had directed that the name of the appellant be entered as the Khatedar of the said land. The Board of Revenue considered the question of Limitation and came to the conclusion that it is a case where the reference should be considered after a period of one year and according to it, the proceedings relating to the reference were initiated within a reasonable time. The appellant assailed the order of the Board of Revenue by filing the writ petition before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge vide order dated November 17, 1998 dismissed the writ petition. Hence, this appeal before us.

(2.) In Anandi Lal v/s. State of Rajasthan [ : 1996 (2) WLC 336], the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court had held that normally the powers under Sec. 82 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 and Sec. 232 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 should be exercised within one year but at the same time, the Division Bench indicated as under: - -

(3.) Mr. Rajendra Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant, vociferously criticized the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge as well as the learned Board of Revenue.