IMPORTANT POINT
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 decree after an unreasonable delay.

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 reference under Section 232 of the Act of 1955 to the Board of Revenue for cancellation of khatedari rights conferred in favour of private respondents. The Board of Revenue thereupon after giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties accepted the reference vide order dated 10.08.1992 and held that as per the provisions of Section 42 of the Act of 1955, the compromise between Jiwala and Chhoga both belonging to Schedule Tribe Community and Phuse Khan who is Non-Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe, was not permissible. Consequently, the judgment and decree dated 31.12.1973 passed by Assistant Collector, Jalore, on the basis of compromise between the parties was set aside.

3. The learned Single Judge in the judgment dated 18.03.2005 while dismissing the Writ Petition preferred by the appellant-Respondent No.2 was pleased to observe that the reference made by Collector under Section 232 of the Act of 1955 after lapse of a period of 18 years from the date mutation was made in favour of Phuse Khan should not have been entertained by the Board of Revenue particularly when there was no allegation with regard to commission of fraud or forgery in getting the compromise decree dated 31.12.1973 passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction i.e. the Court of Assistant Collector, Jalore.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant-State vehemently and fervently submitted that as per Section 42 of the Act of 1955, the sale, gift or bequest by a khatedar tenant of his interest in the whole or part of his holding shall be void if such sale, gift or bequest is by a member of Scheduled Caste or by a Member of Scheduled Tribe made in favour of Non-Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe person. It was urged that admittedly, in the present case the land was transferred by person belonging to Scheduled Tribe in favour of Non-Scheduled Caste/Non-Scheduled. Therefore, the compromise decree dated 31.12.1973 passed by Assistant Collector, Jalore in a suit under Section 88 of the Act of 1955 was a void decree.

5. Learned counsel further submitted that Section 232 of the Act of 1955 does not prescribe any limitation for reference and therefore, Board of Revenue has rightly entertained the reference after 18 years and set aside the judgment and decree dated 31.12.1973 passed by the Assistant Collector, Jalore being void and not enforceable in law. In support of his aforementioned contentions, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Vikram Singh and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. reported in (2014) 11 SCC 238.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 supported the order passed by learned Single Judge and submitted that khatedari rights pursuant to the compromise decree dated 31.12.1973 were creat