KAURANI, CHAIRMAN–Single Bench of this Board, which head three references sent by the Collector, Jodhpur under Section 82 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ``Act of 1956) by order dated 11.4.2005 has referred the following questions for opinion of Larger Bench of the Board:

1- D;k rglhynkj dks dkrdkjh vf/kfu;e ds ykxw gksus ds 34 o"kZ ckn flok; pd Hkwfe ij [kkrsnkjh nsus dk vf/kdkj gS\

2- D;k izkjaHk ls gh vf/kdkj {ks= ls ckgj ikfjr ,sls kwU; o voS/k vknskksa ds vk/kkj ij Lo;a rglhynkj }kjk Lohd`r ukekUrjdj.k ds ekeys esa rglhynkj }kjk [kkrsnkjh vf/kdkj iznku fd;s tkus ds vknskksa dks fujLr djk;s fcuk ukekUrjdj.k dks fujLr ugha djk;k tk ldrk tcfd Lo;a rglhynkj Hkwfe/kkjd gksus ds ukrs flok; pd Hkwfe dk laj{kd (custodian) gS\

3- Mh-ch- Lisky vihyksa esa ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 23-1-2004 dk bu izdj.kksa esa D;k izHkko gksxk\

(2). The Tehsildar Jodhpur by order dated 7.6.1989 conferred khatedari rights on the disputed Sivai Chak land to the non-petitioners and in compliance of this foundation order dated 7.6.89 Tehsildar Jodhpur sanctioned the mutations on 11.10.1989. Subsequently, two mutations were sanctioned, one on the basis of succession and another on the basis of sale-deed. The Collector, Jodhpur found all mutations sanctioned on the Sivai Chak land by the Tehsildar without jurisdiction hence has made three references under Section 82 of the Act, 1956 by orders dated 15.1.2002 and 15.7.2002.

(3). The Single Member of the Board who heard these references felt that the Tehsildar has no jurisdiction to confer khatedari rights on the Sivai Chak land but at the same time he mentioned that a Single Benchof the Board in an earlier reference No. 306/02 State vs. Durgaram rejected the reference made by the Collector on the ground that unless the foundation order of the Tehsildar conferring the khatedari rights is challenged, the mutation sanctioned in compliance of that foundation order of the Tehsildar, cannot be set aside, and that reference number 306/02 was rejected by judgment of 28.3.2003 & special appeal filed against this judgment has also been rejected by Division Bench of the Board by judgment dated 23.1.04.

(4). In view of judgment of the Division Bench dated 23.1.2004 the learned Single Member find himself unable to decide the references because he did not agree with the finding in the judgment of Single Bench dated 28.3.2003 and that of the Division Bench dated 23.1.2004. Therefore he has framed the above three questions referred in para No. 1 and requested the Honble Chairman of the Board to make reference to the Larger Bench to answer these questions. The Honble Chairman has constituted this Larger Bench to give opinion on the questions, hence, these references have come up for hearing and decision before us.

(5). Shri Virendra Singh, Counsel for the non-petitioner has contended that this reference is not a valid reference because legal position on all the three questions referred is well settled. He submits that khatedari rights on the Sivai Chak land cannot be conferred by Tehsildar. His contention is that Tehsildar has right to confer khatedari rights under Section 19(1) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (Hereinafter referred to as ``The Act of 1955). He further submits that unless the foundation order, in compliance of which the mutation has been sanctioned, is challenged, the mutation sanctioned in compliance of that foundation order cannot be set aside. He further submits that the decision of Division Bench of the Board dated 23.1.2004 having binding effect because the judgment of Single Bench dated 28.3.2003 has merged in the judgment dated 23.1.04 of the Special Appeal by Division Bench His contention is that learned Single Member who has made these three references to Larger Bench is bound by the judgment of Division Bench dated 23.1.04. Since the legal position on all the three questions in the reference made by learned Single Member is well settled, therefore, these references made

Click Here to Read the rest of this document