Honble KESHOTE, J.–These are identical matters arising out of and from the same judgment of the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer (hereinafter, referred as the `Board), the same are taken up for hearing together and are being decided by this common order.

(2). Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(3). With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the three documents produced by the learned counsel for the petitioners are taken on record.

(4). Otherwise also these are the orders or judgments passed in these matters by the District Collector, Jhunjhunu and the Board and the application filed by the petitioners before the Collector, Jhunjhunu u/Sec.82 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 and Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953 and there cannot be any objection by the respondents against taking of the same on record. These documents are marked as Court document No.1, Court document No.2 and Court document No.3 respectively for the reference sake in the judgment.

(5). The facts of the case are that before the District Collector, Jhunjhunu 30 applications were filed by the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Jhunjhunu objecting to the decisions given by the Assistant Forest Settlement Officer, Jaipur whereby big chunks of forest land were excluded from the forest boundary under Rule 12(4) of the Rajasthan Forest Settlement Rules, 1958, considering that the non-applicants therein and the respondents herein are in continuous old possession over the same.

(6). These applications were filed u/Sec.82 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956. It is averred that the lands in dispute were transferred from the Revenue Department to the Forest Department vide Government order No.D.24178/F/15(130) Rev/A/56 dated 2.5.1959 and the Government had issued notifications u/Sec.29 of the Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953 on 9.1.1969 and other dates (all before the year 1970) declaring these lands as reserve forest lands. For more than 15 years none of the non-applicants filed any objections u/Sec.6 of the Forest Act against this declarations of the Government. These respondents at a much later stage established their illegal possession and the Assistant Forest Settlement Officer favoured them by his orders which were made in the year 1980. It is laid down in the applications that most of the respondents had never paid any land revenue and that they had not produced any revenue record in support of their claims still the Assistant Forest Settlement Officer based his judgments merely on the oral evidence produced by the respondents and in blantant disregard of the existing revenue record wherein the names of the non-applicants had not found any mention.

(7). Another grievance has been made in the applications that the Assistant Forest Settlement Officer gave no notice of the objections filed by the respondents to the Forest Officer or to the Tehsildar and that they were also not given intimation of the orders made.

(8). The applications filed by the Deputy Conservator of Forest were objected by the respondents. A preliminary objection has also been raised that if the applications are treated as appeals u/Sec.17 of the Forest act, these are time barred. If these are treated as revisions with reference to Section 82 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, the Collector, Jhunjhunu had no jurisdiction to hear the same inasmuch as the Assistant Forest Settlement Officer was not subordinate revenue officer to the Collector. The common thrust of their arguments was on the point relating to limitation. These applications were decided by the Collector, Jhunjhunu under its order dated 31.3.87 and the reference of the matter has been made to the board for taking action u/Sec.82 read with Section 9 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956. This order of the Collector, Jhunjhunu is on the record of this petition as Court document No.2.

(9). In para No.8 of the order the Collector, Jhunjhunu has given out the reasons for entertaining those applications though filed after a considerabl

Click Here to Read the rest of this document