Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH
Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J.
Bhagwan Sahay - Appellant
Versus
Gopal - Respondent
Civil Writ Petition No. 6496 of 2019
Decided On : 12-12-2019
LAND REVENUE - Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 - Section 42(b) - Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 - Sections 82, 175 - Transfer of land from SC to ST - Reference to Board of Revenue - Limitation - Delay and latches - Adverse possession - Stability and finality of proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners challenged the orders rejecting their reference to the Board of Revenue seeking cancellation of a mutation transferring land from their father (an SC) to respondent no.2 (an ST) in 1973, alleging violation of Section 42(b) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. The Board rejected the reference due to extraordinary delay and latches, and dismissed the review petition.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the reference was hopelessly barred by latches and delay. It noted that the petitioners had taken up the issue only after 2008, i.e., after the death of their father, and that the respondent no.2 had been in continuous possession of the land for over 40 years. The Court also observed that the petitioners had accepted the sale proceeds and utilized them for many years.
Issues: 1. Whether the reference to the Board of Revenue under Section 82 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, was barred by limitation or delay? 2. Whether the respondent no.2 had acquired title to the land by adverse possession? 3. Whether the stability and finality of proceedings should be upheld?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that although Section 82 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, does not prescribe any limitation for making a reference to the Board of Revenue, a pragmatic approach must be adopted. It noted that the respondent no.2 had been in continuous possession of the land for over 40 years and had cultivated it, creating vested rights in her favor. 2. The Court observed that the petitioners had not raised any objection to the transfer of land during the lifetime of their father and had accepted the sale proceeds. It held that the respondent no.2 had acquired title to the land by adverse possession. 3. The Court emphasized the importance of stability and finality of proceedings, stating that the law should bring peaceful environment among citizens and not create chaos in their lives.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the orders of the Board of Revenue rejecting the reference and review petition.
JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J. - Instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners assailing the orders dated 26/09/2018, 28/09/2018 and 14/01/2019, rejecting reference made by the Collector, making amendments and rejecting review petition filed by the petitioners respectively.
2. The case set up by the petitioners is that vide registered sale deed dated 26/11/1973 father of the petitioners sold piece of land of ten Khasras measuring 15 Bighas 10 Biswas having corresponding seven new Khasra numbers measuring 3.88 hectares in favour of the respondent no.2. It is submitted that the petitioners' father is from Scheduled Caste while respondent no.2 is a member of Scheduled Tribe. On 03/10/1975, the Sarpanch, gram Panchayat, Bhankrota sanctioned mutation on the basis of the aforesaid sale deed. On 17/03/1990, the respondent no.2 filed an application before the Assistant Settlement Officer for issuing Settlement Parcha in her name and for entering her name in revenue records. On 20/03/1990, the Assistant Settlement Officer made observations with regard to sale of land from SC person to ST but further observed that such mutation could not be cancelled by the department and approved the mutation in favour of the respondent no.2 w.e.f. 1973. After 34 years, the petitioners approached the revenue authorities on 20/07/2007 seeking mutation of the land in their favour after death of their father Ramchandra and an application was submitted to the Collector by them on 16/08/2007 alleging violation of Section 42(b) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 and to make a reference to the Board of Revenue under Section 82 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 for seeking cancellation of the mutation dated 03/10/1975. The Collector registered the Reference No.133/2007 and after hearing of the affected parties sent the reference to the Board of Revenue vide its order dated 16/11/2016 seeking cancellation of mutation dated 03/10/1975. The Board of Revenue rejected the reference vide its order dated 26/09/2018 on the ground of extraordinary delay and latches. Certain corrections were made in its order vide order dated 28/09/2018. The review petition was preferred by the petitioners wherein written submissions were also filed. The Board of Revenue, however, rejected the review petition vide its order dated 14/01/2019.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Board of Revenue did not give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and the order was passed at their back only on the ground of limitation although limitation does not apply to the provisions of Section 82 of the Act of 1956. Learned counsel further submitted that name of counsel for the petitioners was falsely written in the order-sheet whereas the fact is that the petitioners' counsel was conveyed on 06/09/2018 that the next date of hearing was 12/12/2018. It is submitted that the Board of Revenue has preponed the date and without hearing counsel for the petitioners passed the order. It is submitted further that on 28/09/2018 again, the petitioners' counsel was not heard while making corrections. It is also stated that on 28/09/2018, there was strike of the staff of the Board of Revenue and therefore, the petitioners filed an application on 02/11/2018 seeking review of the order dated 26/09/2018 read with order dated 28/09/2018. However, the same was rejected vide order dated 14/01/2019 and therefore, feeling aggrieved, the present writ petition has been filed.
3.1 Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that Section 82 of the Act of 1956 does not prescribe any limitation under the law for making reference to the Board of Revenue for setting aside any illegal proceedings. The sale carried on 26/11/1973 was void being in violation of Section 42(b) of the Act of 1955. It was submitted that on technical ground, the meritorious case could not have been thrown away by the Board of Revenue and the mutation No.212 opened by the Gram Panchayat was also not in
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
