Back
2002 Supreme(Raj) 569
[Citation : RLW 2002 RJ 431 (HC)]
(Rajasthan High Court)
Kasturi Bai (Smt.) Vs. State of Raj. (Garg, J.)
HON'BLE SUNIL KUMAR GARG, J.
Kasturi Bai (Smt.) & Ors.
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Ors.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 197 of 1991, decided on 22nd April, 2002
N.S. Acharya, for Petitioners;
J.K. Bhaiya for Dinesh Maheshwari, for Respondents
Headnote:Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, Sec. 82, 87 and Limitation Act –Reference made to Board of Revenue against order of settlement officer – Reference accepted after 19 years – Held – Sec. 87 provides that provisions of Limitation Act do not apply to references and revisions. (Para 13)
Petition dismissed.
The bar of period of limitation does not apply to references made under Section 82 of the Act of 1956 for the simple reason that Section 87 of the Act of 1956 provides that the provisions of the Indian Limitation Act apply to all appeals and applications for review under the said Act, meaning thereby provisions of the Indian Limitation Act, do not apply to references and revisions. Thus, revisions and references are deliberately and purposely saved from the law of Limitation. Hence, no doubt there was delay in making reference, but looking to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, that delay cannot be said to be fatal. (Para 13)
.
(2). It arises in the following circumstances:-
The Mandir Shri Mahadeoji was tenant of 230 bighas of the agricultural lands known as Dariyanathji-ki-Baori. During settlement operations, that land was entered as tenancy of the Mandir in Samvat year 2014. A copy of the Khatoni prepared by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Jaisalmer during settlement operations is marked as Annex.1. Subsequently, at the time of the final settlement, Parcha Lagan (Annex.2) was issued to Mandir Shri Mahadeoji through Kalyan Nath for only 19 bighas and 7 biswas.
On 12.5.1971, one Mohan Nath, father of petitioners no.2 to 4 and husband of petitioner no.1 submitted an application before the Assistant Settlement Officer, Jaisalmer requesting him to record 230 bighas of land in favour of Mandir Shri Mahadeoji. After enquiry, the Assistant Settlement Officer, Jaisalmer passed an order on 29.10.1971 and by that order, he recorded 229 bighas of land as khatedari land of Mandir Mahadeoji. The copy of the order dated 29.10.1971 passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Jaisalmer is marked as Annex.3.
The Collector, Jaisalmer being aggrieved of the order dated 29.10.1971 (Annex.3) requested the Director of Land Records, Rajasthan, Ajmer to make a reference under Section 82 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ``the Act of 1956) for cancellation of the order dated 29.10.1971 (Annex.3) passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Jaisalmer.
The Collector, Jaisalmer allotted 100 acres of land to the Border Security Force though order dated 26.1.1969 (Annex.5) and the possession of that land was handed over to the Border Security Force on 4.2.1969, but it has been submitted by the petitioners that in the order dated 26.1.1969 (Annex.5), there was no mention of any of the khasras.
During the pendency of the proceedings, Kalyan Nath and Mohan Nath died and the petitioners are their legal representatives.
Pursuant to the request of the Collector, Jaisalmer, reference was made under Section 82 of the Act of 1956 to the Board of Revenue, Ajmer and the board of Revenue, Ajmer through judgment dated 31.8.1990 (Annex.6) accepted the reference and set aside the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer, Jaisalmer dated 29.10.1971 (Annex.3).
In this petition, mainly the judgment of the Board of Revenue dated 31.8.1990 (Annex.6) has been challenged by the petitioners on various grounds and some of them are as follows:-
(1) That the Board of Revenue has no jurisdiction to set aside the order dated 29.10.1971 (Annex.3) passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Jaisalmer and furthermore, since an appeal was filed against the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer dated 29.10.1971 (Annex.3), therefore, the Board of Revenue had no jurisdiction to set aside that order after 19 years of passing that order.
(2) That no doubt there is no limitation period prescribed for exercising jurisdiction under Section 82 of the Act of 1956, but the same has to be exercised within a reasonable time and exercise of jurisdiction after a lapse of 19 years is malafide.
(3) That the findings recorded by the Board of Revenue in its judgment dated 31.8.1990 (Annex.6) are erroneous one, as they are not based on correct appreciation of facts and law.
Thus, it was prayed by the petitioners that this writ petition be allowed and the impugned judgment of the Board of Revenue dated 31.8.1990 (Annex.6) be set aside and the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer, Jailsamer dated 29.10.1971 (Annex.3) be restored.
A reply to the writ petition was filed on beha
