Honble MUKHERJI, ACTG. C.J. – This appeal is filed by the State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Revenue Department impugning a judgment and order dated December 12, 1995 whereby a learned Single Judge dismissed the writ application filed by the State of Rajasthan under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash an order of the Board of Revenue dated November 5, 1990 as well as a decree passed by the Assistant Collector, Nawa dated September 21, 1985. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ application mainly on the ground of delay and further held that there was no infirmity in the order passed by the Assistant Collector as upheld by the Board of Revenue. Hence the special appeal before us.

(2). Admittedly, the land as recorded Khasra No. 622 measuring 2836 bighas 9 biswas situated in village Nawa was entered as a government land in the revenue records, out of which a portion of 3 bighas was allotted to one Lalaram in Smt. year 2018 for three years. The settlement was given on account of the said Lalaram being a landless person. On the basis of Jamabandi entries the said Lalaram sold this three bighas of land to respondent No.2 Nena Ram son of Mangilal Jat on October 10, 1984 by a registered sale-deed. On the basis of the sale deed mutation No. 998 was sanctioned in the name of Nena Ram by the Tehsildar, Nawa giving on April 17, 1985. The said respondent Nena Ram however filed a suit for declaration and injunction on September 3, 1985 against Lalaram impleading Tehsildar, Nawa out a contention inter alia that the sale was in respect of 30 bighas of land out of Khasra No. 622 and 622/11. It was further contended that by mistake of revenue officers Lalaram was entered as khatedar of 3 bighas of land instead of 30 bighas and Nena Ram purchased 30 bighas of land even though in the revenue record only 3 bighas was entered. He prayed for a declaration that he was a khatedar in respect of 30 bighas of land out of khasra No. 622. The respondent Satya Narain however made an application under Order 1 Rule 10, C.P.C. in the self same suit for impleading him as a party on the ground that he was in possession of 10 bighas of land out of 30 bighas claimed by Nena Ram. Nena Ram however did not object to the said Satya Narain being impleaded. However, the learned Assistant Collector, Nawa without any adequate evidence or proof of the same decreed the suit of Nena Ram vide his judgment and order dated September 21, 1985 almost 18 days after the institution of the suit. The suit was really not contested by Lala Ram and a collusive decree was thus obtained. The Assistant Collector held contrary to law that Lala Ram had adverse possession against the State of Rajasthan. Immediately after the decree Nema Ram and Satya Narain sold this land to respondents Rameshwar Lal and Narsingh by registered sale-deeds.

(3). The Tehsildar, Nawa submitted an application under Section 232 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act for making reference to the Board of Revenue for setting aside the illegal and collusive decree passed by the Assistant Collector, Nawa dated September 21, 1985 before the Collector, Nagaur. On this application the Additional Collector registered a case and called for the record of the Assistant Collector, Nawa and after an opportunity of hearing to the respondents and examining the records, found the decree dated September 21, 1985 to be illegal and a collusive one and contrary to the provisions of law and referred the matter to the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan at Ajmer vide his order dated July 20, 1990.

(4). Peculiarly enough, the Board of Revenue committed an error apparent on the face of the record in not accepting the reference made by the Additional Collector, Nagaur. The Member, Board of Revenue did not consider the revenue records and merits of the case. He did not see for himself that in the revenue record the land in dispute was entered as a government land and in Samat 2018 the respondent Lala Ram was allotted only 3

Click Here to Read the rest of this document