Honble MATHUR, J.–This Special Appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dt. 4.4.1997, whereby he allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent Teja and set- aside the order of the Board of Revenue dt. 18.7.1992 following the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Anandi Lal vs. State of Rajasthan (1).

(2). Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the first respondent Teja filed a declaratory suit under Sec. 88 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, hereinafter referred to as ``the Act of 1955, against Chhoga and fourth respondent Bhera in the Court of Assistant Collector, Bhinmal. He claimed to be in the cultivatory possession of 58 bighas and 19 biswas of land in Khasra No. 100 in village Metriwada, District Jalore, much prior to 15.10.1955 i.e., before coming into force the Act of 1955. Thus, according to him, he became khatedar tenant of the land in view of Sec. 15 of the Act of 1955 but at the time of first settlement, the said land was wrongly entered in the name of Chhoga, father of respondent No. 3, who was working as his labourer. The said land was later-on transferred to the fourth respondent. According to first respondent Teja, it was a paper transaction and the possession of the land was never transferred to the fourth respondent Chhoga, father of respondent No. 3, as he himself was not having possession of the said land. Thus, the first respondent asserted that he was in cultivatory possession of the said land. After detailed enquiry, the suit was decreed in favour of the first respondent by the judgment of the Assistant Collector, Bhinmal dt. 5.7.1979. Accordingly, the land was mutated in the name of first respondent under Mutation No. 322 dt. 16.8.1979. After 13 years, the Collector Jalore made a reference u/S. 232 of the Act of 1955 to the Board of Revenue for setting aside the decree & judgment passed by the Assistant Collector, Bhinmal dt. 5.7.1979. The Board of Revenue accepted the reference by judgment dt. 18.7.1992, which came to be set- aside by the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge dt. 4.4.1997.

(3). It is contended by Shri H.R. Soni, learned Additional Government Advocate, that the judgment of the learned Single Judge is in conflict with the subsequent decision of this Court in State of Rajasthan vs. Board of Revenue (2).

(4). The controversy in both the cases, referred-to above, pertains to exercise of powers by the Board of Revenue after lapse of number of years u/S. 82 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, hereinafter referred-to as ``the Act of 1956 and Sec. 232 of the Act of 1955.

(5). For convenience, the provisions of Sec. 82 of the Act of 1956 and Sec. 232 of the Act of 1955 are extracted as follows:

``82 Power to call for records and proceedings and reference to State Government or Board.–The Settlement Commissioner or the Director of Land Records or a Collector may call for and examine the record of any case decided or proceedings held by any revenue Court or officer subordinate to him for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of the order passed and as to the regularity of proceedings;

and if he is of opinion that the proceedings taken or order passed by such subordinate Court or officer should be varied, cancelled or reversed, he shall refer the case with his opinion thereon for the orders of the Board, if the case is of a judicial nature or connected with settlement, or for the orders of the State Government if the case is of a non-judicial nature not connected with settlement;

and the Board or the State Government, as the case may be, shall thereupon pass such orders as it thinks fit.

232. Power to call for record and refer to the Board.–The Collector may call for and examine the record of any case or proceedings decided by or pending before and revenue Court subordinate to him for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of the order or decree passed and as to the regularity of the proceedings, a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document