Hon'ble CHAUHAN, J.—The petitioner has challenged the order dated 06.07.1994 passed by the Additional Collector whereby a reference was made to the Board of Revenue with regard to mutation which was opened in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner has also challenged the order of the Board of Revenue dated 28.04.1995 whereby the reference was allowed and the mutation made in favour of the petitioner was set aside and the land was directed to be mutated in the name of Mandir Shri Madangopalji Maharaj Virajman Moja Bahrawali.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the land situated in village Bahrawali, Tehsil Roopbas, District Bharatpur bearing Khasra Nos.142, 156, 163, 140, 159, 160, 161, 246, 245, 157, 158, 162 and 163 were shown as a “muafi land” of Pandit Gordhan Singh as far back as Samvat Year 1978-79. However, in the year 1945, the said land was shown in the revenue record, in the name of Mandir Gopalji Maharaj and in the name of petitioner's father, Prabhu, as “Ghair Morusidar Pattedar” (sub-tenant). On 20.06.1957, Prabhu applied to the SDO for confirmation of khatedari rights under Section 19 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. Vide order dated 24.05.1958, the SDO allowed the application and conferred khatedari rights. It is pertinent to note that despite the fact that both the State Government and the temple were parties before the SDO, they did not challenge the order dated 24.05.1958. Hence, the said order achieved finality. In pursuance of the order dated 24.05.1958, a mutation, Mutation No.138 was attested in the name of Prabhu and he was recorded as a khatedar of the said land. After the delay of almost thirty-five years, one Charan Lal Sharma filed an application under Section 82 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act before the Additional Collector, Bharatpur, respondent No.2. The petitioners filed the reply. Vide order dated 06.07.1994, the Additional Collector made a reference to the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue, vide order dated 28.04.1994 accepted the reference and passed the order as indicated above. Hence, this petition before this Court.

3. Mr. R.K. Goyal, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that firstly the order dated 24.05.1958 passed by the SDO had achieved finality. Therefore, the Board of Revenue could not circumvent the said order. Secondly, the reference has been made after a delay of thirty-five years. The reference under Section 82 has to be made within a reasonable time. The said reference cannot be made and should not have been accepted after delay of thirty-five years. In order to buttress his contention, he has relied upon the case of Anandi Lal vs. State of Rajasthan & ors. (1996(2) WLC (Raj.) 36 = 1996(1) RLW 396).

4. On the other hand, Mr. Zakawat Ali, the learned Dy. GA for the State, has contended that the land belonging to a deity actually belongs to a minor. The said land needs to be protected from being sold by or being converted in favour of third party. As far back as 1945, the said land was entered into in the name of Mandir Shri Gopalji Maharaj. Therefore, a reference could be made with regard to the illegal declaration of the petitioner's father as khatedar of the said land. Hence, he has supported the impugned orders.

5. Section 82 of the Land Revenue Act is as under :-

“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, 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 wit

Click Here to Read the rest of this document