Honble RAFIQ, J.—The petitioner Lachchi Ram, who is now being represented by his legal representatives, has filed this writ petition challenging the judgment of the Board of Revenue dated 5.6.1997 whereby the revision petition under Section 84 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (in short the Act) filed by him against the order dated 20.3.91 passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner was dismissed thereby upholding order of the Additional Collector Tonk dated 31.3.87 setting aside mutation in favour of the petitioner. He has further challenged the order dated 29.2.97 by which his petition seeking review of the aforesaid judgment dated 5.7.97 was dismissed by the learned Board of Revenue.

2. Dispute pertains to a piece of land bearing Khasra No. 1992 measuring 7 bighas and 13 biswas situated in village Chauru in Tehsil Uniyara of District Tonk. This land was entered in the name of petitioner Lachchi Ram on the basis of his long possession since Svt. 2015 (equivalent to the year 1957-58). Mutation of the land was accordingly made in his name. The respondent Modya and Badri challenged the said mutation No. 35 before the learned Additional Collector, Tonk who by his order dated 31.3.87 held that since the petitioners Lachchi Ram was a person belonging to Dhangar Community, which is a scheduled caste, the land in dispute which was entered in his favour by Gram Panchayat on the basis of transaction of sale by the respondents to the petitioner was not legal because such transaction was barred by Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and therefore was void. Moreover, the transfer of the land could have been made only by a registered sale deed, in the absence of which, it cannot be accepted that the land had actually been sold out by the respondents to the petitioner. The learned Additional Collector accordingly set aside the mutation No. 35. The petitioner filed appeal there against before the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Ajmer on the premise that when the respondents sold the land to him on 2.8.58 against sale consideration, they had also put him in possession and ever since the petitioner was in possession of the land in dispute. It was now not open to them to contend that sale deed shall be executed at a later point of time. The respondents for the first time filed the appeal before the Additional Collector as late as in 1984 with the delay of 26 years. No one can ever bring a suit to challenge the sale after expiry of 12 years. The learned Additional Divisional Commissioner however did not accept any of these arguments and dismissed the appeal thus upholding the order passed by the Additional Collector. The revision petition filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the Board of Revenue and thereafter the review petition was also rejected as aforesaid.

3. I have heard Shri S.C. Gupta, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri R.P. Garg learned counsel for the respondents.

4. Shri S.C. Gupta, the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the mutation entered in favour of the petitioner Lachchi Ram could not have been set aside by the Courts below because the appeal there against was for the fist time filed after expiry of 26 years on 1.8.84 and that no explanation whatsoever was given as to why the appeal was not filed in time. The appeal was also filed before the incompetent authority namely S.D.O., Tonk. The petitioner remained in possession of the land in dispute right since 2.8.58 and has thus acquired title by adverse possession. he has a right to protect his possession on the basis of agreement of sale executed by the original khatedar of the land in favour of Ram Chandra who was father of petitioner Lachchi Ram. The petitioner has remained in peaceful possession of the land in dispute for last 20 years and he has been cultivating the same ever since he acquired its possession. The mutation entries have been made in favour of the petitioner on the basis of the factum of his possession which is d

Click Here to Read the rest of this document