Back
SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, KULDEEP MATHUR
State of Rajasthan, through the Secretary, Department of Revenue, Government of Rajasthan – Appellant
Versus
Subhan Khan, S/o. late Shri Phuse Khan – Respondent
ORDER :
(Kuldeep Mathur, J.) :
1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant-State of Rajasthan against the judgment dated 18.03.2005 passed by learned Single Judge whereby the Writ Petition filed by the respondent No.1 against the order dated 23.12.1991 passed by Collector, Jalore making reference to the Board of Revenue, Ajmer under Section 232 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1955’) and the order dated 10.08.1992 passed by Board of Revenue, Rajasthan Ajmer accepting the same has been allowed and the order dated 23.12.1991 passed by Collector Jalore and order dated 10.08.1992 passed by the Board of Revenue have been quashed and set aside.
2. The facts relevant for adjudication of the present appeal are that the Assistant Collector, Jalore passed a compromise degree dated 31.12.1973 in a suit under Section 88 of the Act of 1955 declaring the land in question which was in the khatedari of Jiwala and Chhoga, both sons of Khuma, belonging to Scheduled Tribe in the name of Phuse Khan (father of respondent No.1). The Collector, Jalore almost after 18 years, of the passing of the compromise decree vide order dated 23.12.1991 made a re
The exercise of revisional powers under Section 232 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act must be done within a reasonable time, and the absence of fraud or misrepresentation precludes the reopening of a decr....
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....
The court established that khatedari rights under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act cannot be revoked without due process, and that administrative orders lacking legal foundation are void.
The main legal point established is that the power to cancel land allotment must be exercised within a reasonable time, and khatedari rights cannot be withdrawn after their conferment.
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.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appeal under Section 20 of the Act of 1975 was not maintainable as the order was passed under Section 9-A, which was non-appealable. The j....
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
