Honble Arvind, M.—This is a revision petition under Section 84 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 against the order dated 4.5.2006 passed by learned Additional Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner in case No. 11/2004.

2. Briefly the facts of this case are that the land situated in village Ridmalsar of khasra No. 40/19/7 area 29 bighas 14 biswas was recorded in the names of Peera and Chhotya and after the death of Peera the share of Peera was also mutated in the name of Chhotya alias Chhotu Khan through mutation No. 79. Chhotya alias Chhotu Khan sold this land during his lifetime through a registered sale deed dated 17.3.75 to the petitioner and handed over the possession at the same time. As per the registered sale deed dated 17.3.75 mutation No. 177 was recorded in the name of the petitioner and the petitioner subsequently became khatedar of the disputed land. During the lifetime of Chhotu Khan neither daughters of Chhotu Khan nor daughters of Peera made any claim on the disputed land. The non-petitioners from the very beginning had the knowledge of the registered sale-deed dated 17.3.75 but hiding this fact they entered into a conspiracy and made an appeal against the mutation No. 79 before learned Sub-Divisional Officer. In this appeal the recorded khatedar petitioner was intentionally not made a party for reasons best known to them. Learned Sub-Divisional Officer ordered as under:—

^^mijksä foospu ds vk/kkj ij esjh lqfopkfjr jk; esa vihykaVk dh ;g vihy Lohdkj djus ;ksX; ikrk gwWA ftls Lohdkj dh tkrh gSA vknsk mi ljiap xzke iapk;r fjMeylj iqjksfgrku ftlds }kjk bUrdky la[;k 79 NksVw[kka ds uke ls [kksyk x;k voS/k o U;k; ds fl)kUrksa ds foijhr gksus ls fujLr fd;k tkrk gS rFkk i=koyh rglhynkj ¼jktLo½ chdkusj dks bl funsZk ds lkFk fjek.M dh tkrh gS fd ih: [kka ds okfjlku dks lquokbZ dk leqfpr volj iznku dj ckn tkap bUrdky rLnhd ckcr~ dk;Zokgh djsA<span>

3. The affected recorded khatedar Shanti Devi made an appeal against the order of learned Sub-Divisional Officer before the learned Additional Divisional Commissioner Bikaner praying that the land had already been purchased long back in the year 1975 and the appeal against the mutation was made after a long lapse of about 15 years before the learned Sub-Divisional Officer and even when there was knowledge to the non-petitioners No.1 to 4 that criminal case was initiated against the petitioner they avoided inclusion of the petitioner as a necessary party. Learned Additional Divisional Commissioner heard the appeal and he went beyond his jurisdiction and made an order in which on the one hand he upheld the order of learned Sub-Divisional Officer dated 4.4.2000 and on the other hand he issued an order like thus:—

^^vr% vknsk gS fd vihy vihykUVk lkjghu gksus ls vLohdkj dh tkrh gS rFkk vihyk/khu fu.kZ; U;k;ky; mi[k.M vf/kdkjh ¼mÙkj½] chdkusj fnukad 4-4-2000 cgky j[kk tkrk gSA rglhynkj chdkusj mi[k.M vf/kdkjh ¼mÙkj½] chdkusj ds fu.kZ; fnukad 4-4-2000 ds Øe esa jsLiksaMsaV la[;k 2 rk 4 vFkkZr~ eq- jger iq=h ih:[kka] eq- ck;yk iq=h ih:[kka] eq- >aojh iq=h ih:[kka dkSe eqlyeku ds uke cfgLlk cjkcj esa ih:[kka ds fgLls dh vkjkth ds fy, crkSj [kkrsnkj ntZ djus dh dk;Zokgh djkosaA

4. Aggrieved against the order of learned Additional Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner this is a revision petition.

5. With the consent of the parties this matter was heard for final decision at the stage of admission. It was also agreed that the relevant record in this matter is only judgments of both the lower courts, hence there was no need of further calling of any other record.

6. Arguing in support of the petition the contention of the learned advocate on behalf of the petitioner is that the petitioner purchased the land from the recorded khatedar and he is a bona fide purchaser. He also argued that the non-petitioners No.1 to 4 had the knowledge about a purchase of the year 1975 but concealing that fact the non-petitioner No.4 Mst. Jhanwari preferred an appeal before learned Sub-Divisional Officer by impleading oth

Click Here to Read the rest of this document