Honble SHETHNA, J.–On the basis of two judgments of this Court dated 4.4.97 delivered in (i) SB Civil Writ Petition No. 775/93 and (ii) judgment dated 11.4.97 delivered in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 1160/94 learned counsel Shri Vijay Bishnoi submitted that impugned order passed by the Board of Revenue is liable to be set aside because there was a delay of as many as 24 years in setting aside the decree by accepting the reference.

(2). Relying upon the case of Anandi Lal vs. State of Rajasthan (1), writ petition No. 775/93 was allowed as there was a delay of 13 years in making reference. What were the facts, have not been stated in that judgment dated 4.4.97. Similarly, writ petition No. 1160/94 was allowed by this Court relying upon Anandi Lals case (su- pra). But the facts were not stated in the judgment dated 11.4.97.

(3). In this case, according to Mr. Bishnoi, there is a delay of 24 years. Reference order dated 30.3.98 (Annex.4) in this petition is self explanatory. On facts of this case, the Board of Revenue found that the Assistant Collector illegally granted Khatedari rights in favour of petitioner Raju Ram, therefore, the decree da- ted 23.7.74 as well as mutation no. 1162 da

Click Here to Read the rest of this document