Point of Law : Proceedings initiated under Section 175 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 were justified and learned Board of Revenue, after duly taking into consideration facts and circumstances of case, passed a well-reasoned order.

JUDGMENT

1. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner-non-applicant no.4, in the matter of order dated 07.01.2013 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jamwaramgarh in Case No. 20/2008 whereby the application filed by the applicant-respondent no.1 (State) under Section 175 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 has been allowed while terminating the tenancy rights of the original khatedars and the possession of the land in question has been ordered to be taken by the State Government.

2. Against the said order dated 07.01.2013, an appeal bearing No. 58/2013 was preferred by the non-applicant-petitioner before the Revenue Appellate Authority wherein the Revenue Appellate Authority vide order dated 29.06.2016, set aside the order dated 07.01.2013 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jamwaramgarh and dismissed the application filed under Section 175 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 filed by the applicant-respondent no.1 (State), as time barred.

3. Thereafter, against the order dated 29.06.2016 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, an appeal was filed by the applicant-respondent no.1 (State) before the learned Board of Revenue and the same was registered as Appeal No. APD/TA/6466/2017/Jaipur whereby the learned Board of Revenue, vide impugned order dated 07.05.2018, allowed the appeal filed by the applicant-respondent no.1 (State) and set aside the order dated 29.06.2016 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority and upheld the order dated 07.01.2013 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jamwaramgarh.

4. In this background, learned counsel for the non-applicant-petitioner submitted that the land in question bearing Khasra No.66, measuring 37.08 Bigha at Gram Chainpura, Tehsil Jamwaramgarh, District Jaipur was recorded in the name of persons belonging to the Scheduled Tribe; namely Ladhu, Mukunda and Shyochanda. The non-applicant-petitioner and the private respondents No.2 to 18 are their legal representatives, who as per the version of the non-applicant-petitioner, are still in cultivation and possession of the said land in question since the time of their predecessors. It was further contended that the applicant-respondent no.1 (Tehsildar, Jamwaramgarh) moved an application under Section 175 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 to resume the khatedari rights and to further take possession of the said land in question by the Government, on the basis of two sale deeds dated 26.08.1966 and 08.08.1972. The said application was moved on account of the fact that the aforementioned sales were prohibited by virtue of Section 42(b) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, as the same were made to individuals who did not belong to the ST Community. It was further contended that the application under Section 175 of the Act of 1955 was filed on 01.06.2006, which is directly hit by the bar of limitation according to Section 214 of the said Act wherein as per Serial No. 66 of Schedule III appended to the Act of 1955, from the date of a sale deed, the maximum time within which an application under Section 175 can be filed is thirty years. Therefore, considering the fact that the application was filed by the applicant-respondent no.1 on 01.06.2006; the same was delayed by a period of 3 and 37 years from the date of the first and second sale deeds, respectively.

5. Furthermore, learned counsel submitted that the actual possession of the land in question is with the non-applicant-petitioner and the original possession of the said land was never delivered by the original khatedars and the same is presently continuing with their legal representatives. It was also submitted that in the present case, execution of both the sale deeds was denied by the non-applicant-petitioner. Moreover, learned counsel also submitted that both the sale deeds, dated 26.08.1966 and 08.08.1972, are illegal and void and therefore, cannot be relied upon by the Court. In this regard, learned counsel apprised the Court of the f