Hon'ble MAHESHWARI, J.—This writ petition is directed against the order dated 24.3.1999 whereby the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer (`the Board'/`the Board of Revenue') accepted the revision petition (No. TA/67/94/Gangangar) preferred by the present respondent No. 4 Kulwant Singh; and, while setting aside the order dated 16.3.1994 as passed by the Additional Collector (Vigilance), Sriganganagar in Appeal No. 34/1992, restored the order dated 15.1.1992 as passed by the Tehsildar (Revenue), Sriganganagar after holding that in the given status of record, the proceedings under Section 183-B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (`the Act of 1955') were not maintainable against the revisionist.

2. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material placed on record with reference to the law applicable, this Court is satisfied that the Board of Revenue has not committed any jurisdictional error in passing the impugned order dated 24.3.1999 and in holding that in the given status of record, the summary ejectment proceedings under Section 183-B ibid. were not maintainable. Therefore, no case for interference in the supervisory jurisdiction is made out; and this petition is required to be dismissed but, in the interest of justice, with the necessary observations for appropriate proceedings.

3. In view of the above, only a brief reference to the background aspects would suffice. The petitioner Natha Singh, said to be the member of a Scheduled Caste, made an application under Section 183-B of the Act of 1955 before the Tehsildar (Revenue), Sriganganagar with the allegations that the non-applicant Kulwant Singh (respondent No. 4 herein), who was not a member of any Scheduled Caste, had trespassed over 3 bighas and 10 biswas of land belonging to him. The non-applicant contested the application with the submissions that he had purchased the land in question from one Prem Singh son of Kesar Singh, a non-Scheduled Caste person, and there had not been any trespass over the land belonging to a Scheduled Caste person. The Tehsildar recorded the statement of Patwari who asserted that the land in question was recorded as government land and the non applicant was in possession thereof. Looking to the given position of the record, the Tehsildar though held that the provisions of Section 183-B ibid. were not applicable when the land in question was not recorded in the name of the applicant but observed that the non-applicant being a trespasser over the government land, appropriate proceedings were required to be adopted against him under Section 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. The Tehsildar also directed the applicant to move the competent court for correction of the revenue record so that appropriate proceedings could be adopted after recording of the land in his khatedari. The Tehsildar said,-

^^vr% ,slh fLFkfr esa ;g vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS fd orZeku jktLo fjdkMZ dks ns[krs gq, ;g vkjkth jdck jkt gS vr% oknh ds uke ugha gS ,oa ;g U;k;ky; jktLo fjdkWMZ esa la'kks/ku djus esa l{ke ugha gS vr% jktLFkku fVusUlh ,DV dh /kkjk 183 ch bl ij ykxw ugha gksrh gS ijUrq izfroknh jdck jkt ij crkSj vfrØeh dkfct gS vr% gYdk iVokjh dks funsZf'kr fd;k tkrk gS fd izfroknh ds f[kykQ jktLFkku ys.M jsosU;w ,DV dh /kkjk 91 ds rgr fjiksVZ vyx ls vius vkj-vks- fgUnweydksV ds U;k;ky; esa is'k dj csn[kyh vkns'k izkIr dj izfroknh dks ekSds ls csn[ky djus dh dk;Zokgh djs ,oa oknh dks ;g funsZf'kr fd;k tkrk gS fd l{ke U;k;ky; esa jktLo fjdkWMZ nq:Lr djus dk nkok is'k dj jktLo fjdkWMZ esa vko';d nq:Lrh djokus ds vkns'k izlkfjr djkos rkfd oknh dks orZeku Hkwfe esa [kkrsnkjh vafdr gks lds rn~uqlkj gh dk;Zokgh dh tk ldsxhA QSlyk [kqyh vnkyr esa lquk;k x;kA**

4. Aggrieved by the order so passed by the Tehsildar, the present petitioner filed an appeal (No. 34/1992) that was considered and allowed by the learned Additional Collector (Vigilance), Sriganganagar by the order dated 16.3.1994. The learned Additional Collector referred to the documents o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document