;kno] lnL;-&;g jsQjsUl izkFkZuk i= vUrxZr /kkjk 82 jktLFkku Hkw jktLo vf/kfu;e] 1956 i=koyh la- 11@2005 ljdkj cuke jktdaoj o vU; esa fn;s x;s fu.kZ; fnukad 29-1-2007 ds }kjk izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA 2- la{ksi esa bl izdj.k ds rF; bl izdkj gSa fd rglhynkj] tks/kiqj us fnukad 5-12-2005 dks ,d izkFkZuk i= ckcr~ izLrqr djus jsQjsUl vUrxZr /kkjk 82 jktLFkku Hkw jktLo vf/kfu;e] 1956 ftyk dysDVj] tks/kiqj dks isk dj fuosnu fd;k fd xzke xsok rglhy tks/kiqj dh [krkSuh lEor~ 1982 ds [kkrk la- 49 ij nsok csVk jkelq[k ekyh ds uke [kljk ua- 700] 701] 703] 705] 706] 710] 711] 712] 712] 713 dqy jdck 58 ch?kk 12 fcLok o [kljk ua0 476 jdck 29-16 ch?kk [kljk ua- 707] 708] 709] 704 dqy jdck 6 ch?kk 15 fcLok [kkrsnkjh ntZ djrs gq, lEor~ 1985 esa mä [krkSuh esa uksV yxkrs gq, Mksyh cuke eafnj Bkdqj th Jh j?kqukFk okds v[ksjkt th dk rkykc c,reke cyoarjkt [kksys mxejkt ds uke ntZ dh xbZ rRipkr~ [krkSuh lEor~ 1999 ds [kkrk la- 110 esa Mksyh cuke eafnj Bkdqj th Jh j?kqukFk okds v[ksjkt th dk rkykc c,reke cyoarjkt [kksys mxejkt ds uke mä [kljk ua- 704] 707] 708] 709] 700] 702@1] 701] 702] 703] 705] 706] 720] 711] 713 o 740 teqys jdck 95 ch?kk 3 fcLok Hkwfe ntZ gqbZA lEor~ 2018 esa 2021 esa Bkdqjth th j?kqukFk th v[ksjkt th dk rkykc c,reke cyoUrjkt ls ifjorZu gksdj Jherh fdj.k daoj tksts tloUrjkt fla?koh ds uke ntZ dj nh xbZA Jhefr fdj.k daoj us [k-ua- 712 jdck 9 ch/kk 11 fcLok] [k-ua- 746 jdck 29 ch?kk 16 fcLok o [k-ua- 713 jdck 4 fcLok dk voS/k :i ls jftLVMZ cspku ckypUn iq= y{e.k yky dksBkjh dks fnukad 20-6-1972 dks] Jh ckypUn us blh Hkwfe dk cspku fnukad 10-4-1974 dks vizkFkhZ jkenkl iq= cakhyky o dSykk pUnz iq= ckypUn vksloky dks dj fn;k ,oa blds ipkr~ jkenkl o dSykk pUnz us [k-ua- 712 jdck 9 ch?kk 11 fcLok Jh jkesoj iq= t;nso dks rFkk [k-ua- 746 jdck 29 ch?kk 16 fcLok] [k-ua- 713 jdck 4 ch?kk dk jktdaoj dks jftLVMZ cspku fd;k x;kA ftuds i{k esa Øek% ukekUrjdj.k la- 72] 87] 117 Loh—r fd;s x;s iwoZ esa [k-ua- 700] 701] 701@1] 702] 702@2] 703] 704] 705] 706] 707] 708] 709] 710] 711] 712] 713 o 746 tqeys jdck 95 ch?kk 3 fcLok Hkwfe ls lEcfU/kr ntZ lHkh ukekUrjdj.k dks fujLr djkus ds fy;s ,d jsQjsUl izLrqr fd;k x;k ijUrq ftyk dysDVj us vius vknsk fnukad 27-11-2001 dks i`Fkd i`Fkd ukekUrjdj.k ds fo:) jsQjsal djus ds fy;s tkap ds funsZk fn;sA jktLFkku dkrdkjh vf/kfu;e] 1955 dh /kkjk 16¼6½ rFkk /kkjk 76 ds rgr efUnj dh iwtuh; ewfrZ ds vO;Ld gksus ds dkj.k Mksyh efUnj dh Hkwfe dh [kkrsnkjh fdlh vU; dks izkIr gh ugha gks ldrhA vr% iqtkjh ;k O;oLFkkid dks bl oftZr Hkwfe dks cspus dk dksbZ vf/kdkj u gksrs gq, voS/k :i ls dkuwu o fu;eksa dks rkd esa j[k dj mä of.kZr efUnj dh Hwkfe dks vizkFkhZx.k dks cspku dj fn;k tks csvlj o izHkko kwU; gksus ls fujLr ;ksX; gSA vr% fooknxzLr Hkwfe Mksyh cuke efUnj Jh Bkdqj th j?kqukFk th okdS v[ksjkt th dk rkykc gksrs gq, Hkh xzke xsaok dh [krkSuh laor~ 2018 ls 2021 esa fcuk fdlh l{ke vf/kdkjh ds vknsk ls Jhefr fdj.k daoj tksts tloUrjkt fla?koh dk uke [kkrsnkj ds :i esa bUnzkt djus ,oa mlds }kjk mä Hkwfe dk voS/k :ils vizkFkhZx.k ds i{k esa fd;s x;s cspkuukesa ds vk/kkj ij xzke xsaok ds Loh—r ukekUrjdj.k la- 72] 87 o 117 dks fujLr djkus ds fy;s ftyk dysDVj] tks/kiqj dks izkFkZuk i= isk fd;kA ftl ij ftyk dysDVj] tks/kiqj us izdj.k la[;k 11@2005 ntZ dj nksuksa i{kksa dh lk{; lcwr ysdj ckn lquokbZ ;g jsQjsUl muds vknsk fnukad 29-1-2007 ls jktLo e.My esa izLrqr fd;kA 3- mHk;i{k dh cgl lquh xbZA 4- fo}ku odhy mi-jktdh; vfHkHkk"kd us viuh cgl esa fuosnu fd;k fd oknxzLr Hkwfe Mksyh cuke eafnj Jh j?kqukFk th ds uke okds v[ksjkt th dk rkykc c,reke cyoarjkt [kksys j?kqukFk ds uke xzke xsaok dh [krkSuh lEor~ 1999 ds [kkrk ua- 117 esa ntZ gSA ftldks ckn esa lEor~ 2018 ls 2021 esa ifjorZu dj Jherh fdj.k daoj tksts tloarjkt fla?koh ds uke dj nh ,oa fdj.k daoj us [TRUNCATED] Reference after 13 years, the Collector made a reference to the Board of Revenue for setting aside the decree and judgment passed by the A.C.E.M.—The Board of Revenue accepted the reference—Held, the respondent has acquired khatedari rights and continued in possession of land for number of years, his rights cannot be called in question after unreasonable delay in absence of a positive case of fraud on account of collusion between the public officer and private party—Single Bench has rightly set aside the order of Board of Revenue - 1995(1) RLR followed." "9. In Anandi Lals case (supra), the Division Bench has taken note of the fact that once a tenant/khatedar acquires tenancy/khatedari rights and continues to be in possession of the land, his rights cannot be called in question after unreasonable delay. Such tenants/khatedars are required to be treated as par, for all purposes, with all other tenant/khatedars, who acquired the tenants/ khatedari rights over the land. It was further observed that to permit the exercise of revisional powers under Section 82 of the Act of 1956 and/or under Section 232 of the Act of 1955 after unreasonable delay would amount to putting imprimatur of the Courts on the unreasonable and arbitrary exercise of power. The Court took the practical view of the matter observing that within a period of one year, the tenant/khatedar of the land would have spent money for the improvement of the land, he would have arranged his affairs of life on the basis that he is in occupation of that basic and made many commitments. In para 25, it is observed that such a power can be exercised even after one year in exceptional cases. Thus, such power can be exercised even after one year not simply in a case of illegality in transaction or fraud simplicitor but where the illegality or fraud is alleged and further it is shown that on account of collusion between the public officers and the private party, the public interest has suffered. Further, this aspect is required to be explained by the revisional authority invoking such power. Thus, such powers cannot be invoked for ipse dixit reasons. 10. In the instant case, while it is true that the subject transfer is in violation of Section 42-B of the Act of 1955 but that, in itself, is not sufficient. Further, this aspect is required to be explained by the revisional authority invoking such power. Thus, such powers cannot be invoked for ipse dixit reasons. 10. In the instant case, while it is true that the subject transfer is in violation of Section 42-B of the Act of 1955 but that, in itself, is not sufficient. As the respondent has acquired tenancy/khatedari rights and continued in possession of the land for number of years, his right cannot be called in question after unreasonable delay in absence of a positive case of fraud on account of collusion between the public officer and the private party. The Collector before invoking the revisional power, has not recorded any reasons to be effect that illegality in transfer as a consequence of fraud between the public officer and the private party has suffered public loss. In our view, the Board of Revenue has committed error in accepting the reference made by the Collector would satisfying the pre-requisite. Learned Single Judge has rightly set aside the order of the Board of Revenue following the decision of the Divisional Bench of this Court in Anandi Lals case (supra) 25- ;g vkj-vkj-Mh 2005 ist 669 esa ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; }kjk lksekuh nsoh cuke LVsV vkWQ jkt- o vU; esa ,l-ch- flfoy fjV fiVhku ua- 2648@98 esa fuEu O;oLFkk iznku dh gS % "Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, Section 82—Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, Section 232—Petitioner, after acquiring khatedari rights continued in possession of the land of many years—Nothing on record to show that the khatedari rights have been acquired by playing fraud by petitioner—Board of Revenue accepted reference and passed order to enter the name of deity in the revenue records—Board of Revenue, held committed illegality in accepting reference after an unreasonable delay of 35 years." "5. Although Section 82 and 232 of 1956 Act (sic ?) do not provide for the period of limitation but concept of exercise of power in a reasonable manner inheres with it the concept or exercising the same within a reasonable time and if the power is not exercised within reasonable time, the invocation of the powers after inordinate delay and the exercise of the same after unreasonable length of time would be unjust, arbitrary and unreasonable. Therefore the action of exercise of such power would be illegal and void. Therefore the action of exercise of such power would be illegal and void. In the instant case there is nothing on record to suggest that fraud was played in making entries in the name of Achhi Lal. As the petitioner, after acquiring khatedari rights continued in possession of the land for a number of years, her rights can not be called in question. The Board of Revenue, in my opinion has committed illegality in accepting the reference after an unreasonable delay of 35 years." 26- vkj-vkj-Mh 2005 ist 713 esa ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; }kjk dkyhpj.k ,pa vU; cuke cksMZ vkWQ jsosU;w ,oa vU; esa ,l-ch- flfoy fjV fiVhku ua- 4118@98 esa fuEu O;oLFkk iznku dh gS % "Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, Section 82—Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Land for Agricultural Purposes) Rules, 1970, Rule 14(4)—Khatedari rights given to the petitioners in the year 1962—Application filed under rule 14(4) by one N before the Collector in 1992—Collector made reference to Board of Revenue—Board remanded matter for fresh decision after giving opportunity to both parties—Addl. Collector after hearing the matter again made reference on 28.7.1997, which was allowed by Board of Revenue by order dated 28.4.1998 by which order of Tehsildar regularising land and making mutation in favour of petitioner was cancelled—Held, Addl. Collector and Board exercised powers u/Sec. 82, L.R. Act after 30 years—Orders of Board of Revenue and Addl. Collector set aside." "3. The Division Bench of this Court in Anandi Lal vs. State of Rajasthan, 1990(1) DNJ (Raj.) 100 indicated that no permit exercise of revisional powers under Section 82 of the 1956 Act after reasonable delay would amount putting impre-mature of the Courts on the unreasonable and arbitrary exercise of powers. 4. Although Section 82 of 1956 Act does not provide for the period of limitation but concept of exercise of power in a reasonable manner inheres with it the concept of exercising the same within a reasonable time and if the power is not exercised within reasonable time, the invocation of the powers after inordinate delay and the exercise of the same after unreasonable length of time would be unjust, arbitrary and unreasonable. Therefore, the action of exercise of such power, would be illegal and void. 5. Therefore, the action of exercise of such power, would be illegal and void. 5. Since the Additional Collector, Dholpur and Board of Revenue exercised the powers after about 30 years, exercise of such powers is unjust and the impugned orders deserves to be quashed." 27- mi;qZä U;k; O;oLFkk ds vuqlj.k esa ;g jsQjsUl 33 o"kZ ipkr~ isk gksus dk Hkh dksbZ vkSfpR;iw.kZ dkj.k izrhr ugha gksrk gS] ftlls ;g E;kn ckgj Hkh gSA 28- vr% xq.k nks"k ij ,oa E;kn ckgj gksus ls izLrqr jsQjsUl fujLr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA 29- ifj.kkeLo:i ftyk dysDVj] tks/kiqj }kjk izdj.k la- 11@2005 esa muds vknsk fnukad 29-1-2007 }kjk izLrqr fd;k x;k ;g jsQjsUl lkjghu gksus ls [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gSA fu.kZ; [kqys U;k;ky; esa lquk;k x;A