Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL, J
STATE OF RAJ – Appellant
Versus
SUMER SINGH DECE ANDORS – Respondent
Order :
1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 27.09.2011 passed by the Board of Revenue Rajasthan, Ajmer (for brevity, ‘Board of Revenue) in reference petition no.827/2002: State Vs. Sumer Singh whereby, while dismissing the reference, mutation in favour of the respondents has been maintained.
2. The relevant facts in brief are that vide its order dated 19.01.2002, the Additional Collector-Second, Jaipur made a reference to the Board of Revenue under Section 82 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act , 1956 seeking cancellation of mutation of the subject land in favour of the respondents on the premise that the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Chittora had no authority to record the mutation under the provisions of Rajasthan Tenancy Act , 1955, there was no registered document available on record to support the case of the respondents that the subject land stood transferred in their favour on account of compromise and partition and also for the reason that the transfer was made in favour of the persons who were neither residents of the village nor, used to cultivate the land only to escape from the ceiling law. The aforesaid refe
The mutation in land revenue cannot be cancelled without addressing and potentially invalidating prior orders, ensuring procedural integrity.
The High Court will not interfere with an order passed by a lower court or tribunal under Article 227 of the Constitution of India if quashing the order would result in restoring an illegal order.
Point of Law : Court is in complete agreement with reasoning adopted by BOR - There is no violation of principles of natural justice and no palpable error has crept in the order of the BOR.
The Board of Revenue exceeded its jurisdiction by entertaining a revision against a non-meritorious permit to withdraw, as the underlying assistant collector's order remained unchallenged.
The court upheld the Board of Revenue's decision that the petitioner was neither a necessary nor a proper party to the proceedings, affirming the dismissal of his application.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
