The sufficiency of evidence and material to support conclusions regarding rights over the land is crucial in cases involving correction of entries in revenue records.

JUDGMENT :

1. The matter pertains to the year 1999, and thus, listed under the category of “Oldest Cases for Early Disposal”.

2. The instant petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred against the order dated 29.06.1998 (Annexure-7) passed by the Collector -cum- Deputy Colonisation Commissioner, Bikaner, whereby the said revenue authority made a reference before the learned Board of Revenue for Rajasthan (BoR), Ajmer; the order dated 09.09.1998 (Annexure-8) passed by the learned BoR accepting such reference while setting aside the order dated 10.05.1989 (Annexure-4) passed by the Assistant Colonisation Commissioner, IGNP, Kolayat (Assistant Commissioner’), has also been assailed in the instant petition.

3. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel of the petitioners, are that the petitioners had filed an application under Sections 125 & 136 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 1956’) before the Assistant Commissioner for correction of entries in the revenue records. It was stated that the petitioners were in cultivatory possession of the land comprising khasra no. 708 Rakba 86 bighas at Village Gogariyawala, since samwat 2012, and therefore, the said land may be recorded in their name. Thereafter, the statements of one Phoosa Ram and Harlal were recorded regarding the possession of the petitioners over the land in question.

3.1. The Assistant Commissioner vide order dated 10.05.1989 allowed the aforesaid application, and passed a decree in favour of the petitioners; it was also directed that the mutation entries be made accordingly.

3.2. Subsequently, the Collector-cum-Deputy Colonisation Commissioner, Bikaner, vide the impugned order dated 29.06.1998, made a reference under Section 232 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 and Section 82 of the Act of 1956 before the learned BoR, against the aforesaid order dated 10.05.1989. The learned BoR vide the impugned order dated 09.09.1998 accepted the reference and set aside the order dated 10.05.1989.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the land in question is the ancestral land of the petitioners and they are cultivating the same, since the summary settlement made in samwat 2012 and regular settlement samwat 2017, and therefore, the Assistant Commissioner has rightly allowed their application while ordering correction of the entries in the revenue records.

4.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the respondents have not preferred any appeal against the order dated 10.05.1989, but the reference in question was made after an inordinate delay of almost 10 years, which is not permissible under the law.

4.2. Learned counsel also submitted that the Collector -cum- Deputy Colonisation Commissioner and the learned BoR committed grave irregularity in passing the impugned orders, because the petitioners’ possession over the land in question is in the capacity of being recorded khatedars, which is clear from the aforementioned order dated 10.05.1989 passed by the Assistant Commissioner. Thus, as per learned counsel, the impugned orders are not sustainable in the eye of law.

4.3. In support of such submissions, learned counsel relied upon the following judgments:

(a) State of Rajasthan Vs. Teja & Ors. (D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.1118/2000, decided by a Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court on 04.01.2005;

(b) Chutra & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3993/1998, decided by a Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court on 08.12.2011);

(c) Radha Kishan Vs. State & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6733/2003, decided by a Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court on 26.08.2015; and

(d) Poosa Ram Vs. The Board of Revenue & Ors. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.179/1989, decided by a Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court on 18.09.1995.

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, while opposing the aforesaid submissio