The Collector and the Board of Revenue cannot dismiss an appeal on non-existent grounds. The Board of Revenue cannot simply uphold the Collector's order without considering the petitioner's submissions.

1. - The matter comes up on an application filed by the respondents No.4 & 5 seeking vacation of the interim order dated 17.10.2014 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, whereby it was directed that the status quo with regard to the disputed land be maintained.

2. With the consent of the parties and looking to the nature of the dispute involved, the writ petition itself is taken up for hearing.

3. The petitioner filed an appeal under Section 75 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 ('the Act') before the Collector, Bhilwara inter-alia questioning the partition map (tarmim) said to have been executed on 11.6.1989 in pursuance to the partition affected between the then khatedars of land comprised in Khasara No.1051.

4. The land had been transferred to the petitioner as well as respondents No. 4 & 5. The Collector by order dated 31.12.2012 (Annex.13), after noticing the contentions raised by the petitioner herein, indicated that the khatedars of the disputed land who are affected parties have not been impleaded, and the appeal has been filed based on the sale deeds, which have not been given effect to in the revenue records and consequently, dismissed the appeal after condoning the delay.

5. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Board of Revenue in its revisional jurisdiction. The Board of Revenue by its order dated 27.6.2013, after noticing the contention of the parties and the order passed by the Collector observed that the order does not appear to be against the law and dismissed the revision petition.

6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the District Collector and Board of Revenue fell in grave error in dismissing the appeal/revision filed by the petitioner only on the ground of non-impleadment of necessary parties. It was submitted that all the three khatedars of the land comprised in Khasara No.1051 were impleaded as parties and the other ground regarding the revenue record not having been changed in pursuance to the transfer is factually incorrect and drew the attention of this Court to Annexure-4 pg. 30 and Annexure-5 pg. 31 to 33, wherein the land stands recorded in the names of three parties which were before the District Collector.

7. It is submitted that both the grounds taken by the learned Collector are factually incorrect and the Board of Revenue has simply reiterated the finding without application of mind and therefore, the orders passed by both the authorities below deserve to be set-aside.

8. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that there is no substance in the writ petition filed by the petitioner. The petitioner along with the respondents were applicants for allotment of Retail Outlet, however, the petitioner having failed to secure allotment in his favour have raised several issues, which have not substance and made submissions on merits of the appeal filed by the petitioner before the Collector.

9. It is further submitted that the Board of Revenue dismissed the revision petition on 26.7.2013. However, the present writ petition has been filed on 16.10.204 after inordinate delay and in the meanwhile, the respondent has changed his position, inasmuch as, vide Letter of Intent dated 10.10.2013, the retail outlet has been allotted to him and he has already undertaken extensive work and invested money and therefore, the writ petition be dismissed on account of latches.

10. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

11. The learned District Collector by its order dated 31.12.2012 dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner after condoning delay on two grounds, as noticed here-in-before, for non-impleadment of necessary parties and for non-recording of land in the name of the petitioner and respondents No.4 & 5. Both the grounds given by the Collector appears to be wholly non-existent, inasmuch as, Khasara No.1051 stands transferred in favour of the petitioner and respondents No.4 & 5, who admittedly, were before the Distri