TIWARI, M.—This is a reference made by Collector Sriganganagar under Section 232 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (in short, 'the Act') against the impugned judgment dated 4.12.1985 of Sub-Divisional Officer, Suratgarh.

2. Briefly stated, the facts are that Sub-Divisional Officer, Suratgarh conferred khatedari rights by the impugned judgment on the non-petitioner under Section 15-AAA of the Act in respect of the command land bearing Stone Nos. 211/212, 211/213, 211/214 and 211/222 measuring 31 bighas located in Chak No. 2 K.S.M. The Collector Sriganganagar, on the report of Tehsildar, called for the record of the Sub-Divisional Officer and examined legality and propriety of the order passed under Section 232 of the Act and found that the impugned order was illegal and erroneous in violation of the provision of the Act. So he made a reference to the Board for setting aside of the judgment dated 4.12.1985 of Sub-Divisional Officer Suratgarh. Thereupon the learned Single Bench of this Court by its judgment dated 6.5.1992 allowed the reference and set aside the impugned judgment of the Sub-Divisional Officer. Aggrieved against the judgment of this Court dated 6.5.1992 the non-petitioner filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code for setting aside of the impugned ex parte judgment, which was allowed by the Court and the ex parte judgment dated 6.5.1992 was rescinded and the reference was taken back on the record for re-hearing.

3. I have heard the learned counsel of both the parties.

4. The learned Dy. Govt. Advocate pleaded that the disputed land situated in command area was government land before 15.10.1955 i.e. the date for the commencement of the Act. The non-petitioner was neither an allottee of the land prior to 1955 nor was in occupation of this land as a tenant. The first cultivation said to be made on the disputed land was in Svt. 2014 i.e. in the year 1957 hence the non-petitioner Bega Ram was not entitled to conferment of any khatedar right under Section 15AAA of the Act. The non-petitioner Bega Ram himself has admitted the fact in his oral evidence that the first temporary allotment made to him was in Svt. 2014. The application made by the non-petitioner for permanent allotment of he land was rejected on 21.2.1978. Nonetheless, Sub-Divisional Officer Suratgarh conferred khatedari right on Bega Ram in flagrant violation of the provisions of the Act. There are lot of cuttings in the record which shows the record was tempered to show his false possession on the land. Besides it, the non-petitioner was not a landless person and as such was neither entitled for allotment nor conferment of khatedari rights in respect of the disputed land. As such the impugned illegal order of Sub-Divisional Officer should be set aside.

5. Opposing the contentions of the Dy. Govt. Advocate, the learned counsel for the non-petitioner pleaded that the reference under consideration has been made by District Collector by post; the reference has not been presented in person by Collector or any Government advocate. Thus, this reference cannot be said to have been legally presented in the Court as per provision of Rule 35 of the Rajasthan Revenue Court Manual (Part-I) according to which it is mandatory that the application shall be presented to the Board by the party in person or his advocate and not through post. According to Schedule III of the Act 'reference' under Section 232 of the Act is shown as an application at Serial No. 79; so reference is an application which has not been legally presented before the Board; as such it is not maintainable and as such it should be dismissed on this ground only.

6. The Dy. Government Advocate submitted in rebuttal of the legal objection of the learned counsel for the non-petitioner that Rule 35 of the Revenue Court Manual (Part-I) does not apply in case of any appeal or application for which separate provision is provided. For 'reference' there is a separate provision of Section 232

Click Here to Read the rest of this document