The main legal point established in the judgment is that the power to transfer a Patwari is vested in the Collector and the Board of Revenue, and inter-division transfers can only be made upon the Patwari's own request, as per Rule 9 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Land Records) Rules, 1957.

JUDGMENT

1. By way of present writ petitions, the petitioners herein have challenged the orders dated 25.09.2019, whereby they have been transferred.

2. Mr. Godara, learned counsel for the petitioners, invited Court's attention towards the order dated 25.09.2021 and pointed that the petitioners have been transferred pursuant to directions issued by the Joint Secretary, Colonization Department, Jaipur. He added that even the letter of Joint Secretary (Annex.5) records ^funsZ'kkuqlkj* and argued that the transfer cannot be made at the instance/directions of the State Government, particularly when the power to transfer vests in the Commissioner, Colonization.

3. Learned counsel submits that the issue involved in the writ petition is squarely covered by a judgment dated 21.10.2019, rendered in the case of Chandra Shekhar v. State & Ors. (SBCWP No.14327/2019) and judgment dated 24.11.2015 in the case of Chander Kanta v. State & Ors. (SBCWP No.11022/2015) , wherein it has been categorically held that transfer made pursuant to direction of Revenue Minister/State Government is contrary to Rule 9 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Land Records) Rules, 1957 (for short, 'the Rules of 1957').

4. That apart, since the proper place of posting has not been indicated, learned counsel submits that impugned transfers are also contrary to the judgment dated 18.03.2021, rendered in the case of Rajpal Singh v. State & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.544/23021.

5. Mr. Joshi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, is not in a position to dispute the aforesaid position of facts and law.

He, however, submits that power to transfer a Patwari vests in the State Government.

6. On perusal of record, particularly Annex.5, this Court finds that the Joint Secretary has simply issued direction (that too on someone else's diktats) to the Commissioner, Colonization to transfer the petitioners and other Patwaris to a particular area without prescribing any Patwar Mandal or place of posting. The same has not even been indicated to have been made in the interest of efficiency of work or to fill-up the vacancy.

7. According to the Rule 9(1) of the Rules of 1957, it is the Collector who can transfer a Patwari from one circle to another, but in case of inter-district transfers, sanction of the Board of Revenue is quint essential.

8. In the case of Chandra Shekhar (supra), this Court has held thus:-

"Rule 9 :

(ia) ... ... ...

(ib) the Divisional Commissioner may transfer a Patwari on his own request anywhere within the Division and the Board of Revenue may transfer a Patwari on his own request anywhere within the State.:

Provided that the State Government may direct the Divisional Commissioner for the transfer of a Patwari on his own request anywhere within the Division or the Board of Revenue for the transfer of a Patwari on his own request anywhere within the State."

A perusal of sub-rule (ib) clearly indicates that a Divisional Commissioner may transfer a Patwari on his own request anywhere within the Division and the Board of Revenue may transfer a Patwari on his own request anywhere within the State.

Proviso indicates that the State Government may direct the Divisional Commissioner for transfer of Patwari on his own request anywhere within the Division and the Board of Revenue may transfer a Patwari on his own request anywhere within the State. There is no other provision which deals with the inter- division transfer of Patwari and the provision, as noticed herein-before, is explicit wherein only the request of the Patwari, he can be transferred inter- division.

Admittedly, none lf the petitioners have requested for inter-division transfer and therefore, the action of the respondents in passing the impugned orders dated 21.09.2019 effecting inter-division transfers of the petitioners, cannot be sustained."

9. In ivew of the aforesaid, the writ petitions are allowed. The impugned orders dated 25.09.2019, issued by the State Government so also by the Commissioner, Colonizati