Honble SHARMA, J.–Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2). The predecessor in title of petitioners Narain Singh filed a suit for declaration against Smt. Gainda (predecessor in title of respondents No. 4 to 7) regarding the land in dispute situated in village Kakda Tehsil Deeg claiming to be in possession of the land since Svt. 2014 and acquired khatedari rights. Since despite service the defendant did not appear the Sub Divisional Officer Deeg proceeded exparte and decreed the suit vide judgment dated July 20, 1970. The respondents filed first appeal on June 23, 1973 along with the application under Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963. On receiving notices the petitioners raised preliminary objections. The appeal came to be dismissed vide judgment dated July 16, 1974. Thereafter the respondents filed second appeal before the Board of Revenue (for short `Board), who vide judgment dated November 11, 1982 dismissed the same holding that the respondents purchased the land in dispute from Gainda after institution of suit, therefore, the transaction was hit by the doctrine of lispendense. It was also held that Smt. Gainda belonged to Scheduled Caste whereas plaintiff belonged to caste Fauzdar, therefore there was violation of Section 42 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. The State Government was not party to suit therefore the transfer of possession was in violation of Section 42. In the year 1973 the respondents 4 to 7 also filed a suit for declaring the decree dated July 20, 1970 as null and void. The petitioner raised objection regarding maintainability of suit in revenue court. The suit was dismissed vide judgment dated June 7, 1976. The respondents filed another suit on July 19, 1983 August 4, 1983 for declaring the decree dated July 20, 1970 null and void. The same was also dismissed in default on March 25, 1989.

(3). Again in the year 1995 the respondents filed suit for declaring null and void the sale deed dated April 26, 1990/April 30, 1990 of 1/4 share out of land in dispute by petitioner No. 4. The respondents concealed the facts of earlier judgments and fraudulently the notices were not served upon petitioners and exparte decree dated July 1, 1995. Thereafter the mutation No. 259 got opened in their favour. The petitioners and other defendants filed application on February 2, 1996 under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside exparte decree dated July 1, 1995. The stay order was also obtained on February 3, 1996 but the same was vacated on February 14, 1996 and revision petition also dismissed on May 1, 1999. On February 22, 1996 the petitioner filed complaint under Section 145 CrPC and attachment proceedings was initiated and receiver was appointed.

(4). The respondents filed application in the year 1996 for making reference disclosing the fact of purchase of land by them through sale deed on November 4, 1965 and mutation No. 327 was opened on June 16, 1966. The decree dated July 20, 1970 was assailed on the ground that the same was in favour of savarna caste and the same is hit by section 42 of the Act. On such application the reference was made vide order dated October 28, 1996. The Board vide judgment dated September 8, 1997 accepted the reference and cancelled the decree dated July 20, 1970. The review filed by petitioner was dismissed vide order May 31, 1999. Against the orders dated October 28, 1996 of Collector Bharatpur, September 8, 1997 and May 31, 1999 of the Board that the instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner.

(5). The State of Rajasthan submitted reply to the writ petition with the averments that since the land belonged to member of Scheduled Caste the decree could not have been passed.

(6). Admittedly the Board and revenue Appellate Authority dismissed the appeals of the respondents earlier. Thereafter the respondents initiated other proceeding to make reference on February 22, 1996 after unreasonable delay of more than 25 years. There is nothing on record to show that fraud was played in obt

Click Here to Read the rest of this document