GAJENDRA PRAKASH Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are legal representatives of Late Shri Shyam Lal. It is stated that they were in possession of some kuccha and pucca houses along with an open 'bara' behind the house in village Jaisingh pura-khor, Tehsil and District Jaipur. Shyam Lal was convicted for murder and remained in jail and after completing the punishment when he came out of jail, 'it is stated that the 'bara' in possession of Shyam Lal had been illegally auctioned in favour of non-petitioner no. 5. THE auction was held by the Gram Panchayat respondent No. 4. THE 'bara' was sold on 8. 9. 1974. Aggrieved against the said sale by the Gram Panchayat, Late Shri Shyam Lal had filed a revision petition before the Collector under Rule 272 of the Gram Panchayat (General) Rules, 1961. THE Additional Collector, 1, Jaipur vide its order dated 5. 9. 1980 had cancelled the auction in favour of respondent No. 5 Aside order Annexure-1. Non-petitioner No. 5 Kalyan Sahai filed a second revision petition before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaipur. THE Revenue Appellate Authority set-aside the order of the Additional Collector, vide judgment dated 31. 7. i987, copy of which is attached as Annexure 2. Being aggrieved, said Shri Shyam Lal filed a revision petition before the Board of Revenue who dismissed the same vide order Annexure-III on 30. 4. 1990. Being aggrieved against the orders passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority and the Board of Revenue, the petitioner has filed the present writ; petition.

(2.) IT is stated by the petitioner that the orders passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority wore illegal and without jurisdiction for the reason that powers under Section 27 (A) r/w Rule 272 were exercisable by the Additional Collector only and not by the RAA and, therefore, the Board of Revenue had not exercised the jurisdiction in accordance with law. IT is further submitted that the Board of Revenue had not considered the legal point involved in the revision petition. Before the Revenue Appellate Authority and against the order of Additional Collector appeal was filed beyond the period of limitation of 5 years i. e. the order of the Collector dated 5. 9. 1980 was challenged on 21. 12. 1985. IT is further submitted that as a matter of fact the land in question was in possession of the petitioners from the time immemorial i. e. from fore-fathers and no auction could have been held.

(3.) COUNSEL for the respondent also states that ever since the non-petitioner No. 5 had made construction at the site and 'if any adverse order is passed, the non-petitioner would suffer irreparable loss because of change of the position of the land in question. So far as jurisdiction of RAA is concerned, counsel for the respondents had relied on two notifications dated 19. 10. 1973 and 4. 7. 1995 to the effect that some powers have been delegated to RAA against the orders passed by the Collector u/s. 27-A of the Act. However, no copy of the notification has been placed on record.