1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATUARE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR.

ORDER.

Pradeep Sablok

vs.

The State of Raj.

& ors.

& ors.

S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.4661/2001 under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Date of Order:

May 16, 2005.

PRESENT

HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA,J.

Mr. V.D. Kalla, for the petitioners.

Mr. L.R. Upadhyay, for the respondents.

BY THE COURT

The present writ petition is against the order of the Government

dated 27^th-29^th July, 1996 by which the Government put a restriction

against making any change in the revenue record and also passed the

order not to open mutation for the land of khasara no. 632.

The petitioners' case is that petitioners no.1 to 4 are the khatedar

tenants of the land in dispute as they became the khatedar tenants in

the land in dispute under the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 6 of

2

the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Acquisition of Land Owners Estates Act,

1963 (for short 'the Act of 1963'). According to the petitioners, on

earlier occasion, the Government issued a notice under Section 9-A of

the Act of 1963 for taking possession of the land in dispute, upon which

the petitioners preferred writ petitions nos. 1880/1975 and 1881/1975.

Those writ petitions were allowed by this Court on 4.1.1985. Against the

decision of this Court dated 4.1.1985, D.B.Civil Special Appeals

Nos.289/1985 and 291/1985 were preferred. The appeals were

dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court on 2.9.1986. The

petitioners are claiming their khatedari rights (khasara nos.632/3 and

khasara no.632/11) and which were the subject matter in the earlier

writ petitions filed by the petitioners. In view of the judgments

delivered in the above referred writ petitions and the D.B.Civil Special

Appeals, the petitioners no.1 to 4 have been declared to be khatedar

tenants of the land in question.

The petitioners no.1 to 4 sold their land to respondents no.5 to 9

and thereafter presented their papers before the Tehsildar, Jodhpur for

making necessary entries in the revenue record in consequence of the

purchase of the land by these purchasers but the revenue authorities are

not entering the names of the purchasers as khatedar tenants in the

revenue record simply because the Government had issued the

3

impugned order dated 27^th-29^th July, 1996.

According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the revenue

authorities have no jurisdiction to sit over the matter and the order

passed by the Government is wholly without jurisdiction because the

mutation is a judicial proceeding and for that purpose, even supervisory

power vests with the Board of Revenue as provided under Section 23 of

the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act.

The respondents submitted reply to the writ petition and have not

disputed the previous litigations and the orders passed by this Court in

favour of the petitioners. However, the respondents are relying upon

few judgments of this Court and the action taken thereafter relating to

other land belonging to the erstwhile ruler and alleged to have been

transferred to other persons. Therefore, according to the respondents,

in view of the disputes relating to the claim of other persons, since the

writ petitions are pending before this Court, therefore, the stay order

has been passed by the Government so that entries in revenue record

may not be changed. It is also submitted that no mutation can be

opened when there is a gift, sale or transfer of the agricultural land, not

by registered deed, therefore, the petitioners cannot claim for opening

mutation in their names.

4

I considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the

parties. Since the facts are not in dispute and the matter is relating to

the only mutation and since this Court has already decided the

controversy by the judgment delivered in S.B.Civil Writ Petition Nos.

1880/1975 and 1881/1975 dated 4.1.1985 and by the Division Bench

judgment of this Court