Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1303 (RAJ)

Shreyansh Daga v. State of Rajasthan

2013-07-17

VINEET KOTHARI

body2013
Hon'ble Dr. KOTHARI, J.—By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned notice/communication Annex.6 dated 20.4.2011 and also the representation filed by the private respondent Jorawar Singh S/o Mrigendra Singh, a minor through his natural guardian Smt. Kokila Singh on the basis of which the impugned proceedings are sought to be initiated against the petitioner under Section 83 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956. 2. The facts in nutshell are like this. 3. The Ex-ruler of Jodhpur State is said to have the agricultural and measuring 316 bighas situated in Khasra No.4 of village Kacholia Beria (Tehsil Jodhpur, which land was under the cultivatory possession of Col. Mohan Singh Bhati and the said land is said to have been transferred by way of lease to him and for seeking correction in the mutation entries, the said Col. Mohan Singh Bhati moved an application, which was registered as case No.90/70 (Mohan Singh Bhati vs. Controller of Household, Jodhpur) by the Assistant Records Officer, Jodhpur. It is further stated in the writ petition that out of the said 316 bighas of land, 256.10 bighas was under the cultivatory possession of Narendra Singh Bhati S/o Col. Mohan Singh Bhati for quite long time and he invested huge amount in developing the said land, therefore, for recording his name as Khatedar of 256 bighas & 10 biswas of land, he moved the Assistant Record Officer and vide order dated 25.5.1970, the Assistant Record Officer mutated the said 256.10 bighas of land in the name of Narendra Singh Bhati and remaining 56.10 bighas of land in the name of Col. Mohan Singh Bhati without any objection by Col. Mohan Singh Bhati. 4. On 6.6.1972, out of his holding of 256.10 bighas of land, the said Narendra Singh Bhati gifted 86.10 bighas of land to one Smt. Krishna Kak and another 46.10 bighas of land was gifted by him to Ms. Kamla Bhalla and mutation entries in favour of these two donees were also recorded by the concerned revenue authorities on 6.6.1972. On 23.12.2003, Ms. Kamla Bhalla, one of the donees, sold 45 bighas of land to the present petitioner - Shreyansh Daga and one bighas to another person, namely; Abhinav Kumbhat. Kamla Bhalla and mutation entries in favour of these two donees were also recorded by the concerned revenue authorities on 6.6.1972. On 23.12.2003, Ms. Kamla Bhalla, one of the donees, sold 45 bighas of land to the present petitioner - Shreyansh Daga and one bighas to another person, namely; Abhinav Kumbhat. The said purchasers on the basis of their title documents got the said agricultural land converted and regularized in their names under Section 90B of the Rajasthan Land Revenue act, 1956 from the competent authority UIT, Jodhpur vide Annex.4 dated 6.4.2005 and the said authority upon surrender of 45.10 bighas of land and UIT, Jodhpur gave back 26.14 bighas of land under Section 90-B of the Act to the said purchaser-petitioner-Shreyansh Daga and accordingly the Patta was issued and registered in his favour on 16.4.2010 vide Annex.5. 5. It is the case of the petitioner that the order of mutation dated 25.5.1970 in favour of his seller Ms. Kamla Bhalla is a judicial order and the said order dated 25.5.1970 attained finality as nobody challenged the said order at any point of time nor the transfer by way of gift was ever challenged even by Col. Mohan Singh Bhati himself, who was alive upto the year 1995 and by Narendra Singh Bhati upto 2010 while said Shri Narendra Singh Bhati was alive. 6. It is also stated in the writ petition that since the said agricultural land continued to be recorded in the revenue records as and of Ex-ruler of Jodhpur, on account of coming into force of the Rajasthan Land Reforms & Acquisition of and Owners Estate Act, 1963, the said Col. Mohan Singh Bhati and Narendra Singh Bhati were even given notice under Section 9 of the said Act of 1963 treating them as trespasser, which proceedings were challenged by them before the High Court by way of writ petition, namely SBCWP No. 1858/75, which came to be allowed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 26.3.1981 vide judgment reported in the case of Col. Mohan Singh Bhati vs. State - 181 WLN UC 62. Mohan Singh Bhati vs. State - 181 WLN UC 62. The Division Bench of this Court is also stated to have upheld the said judgment of learned Single Judge on 19.2.1982 while dismissing the intra court appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan vide DB Civil Special Appeal No.154/81 - State of Rajasthan vs. Narendra Singh Bhati and DB Civil Special Appeal No. 155/82 - State of Rajasthan vs. Col. Mohan Singh Bhati. The relevant extracts of these judgments would be referred hereinafter. 7. The cause of action for filing the present writ petition appears to have arisen to the petitioner when the minor son of Mrigendra Singh Bhati, namely; Jorawar Singh aged 12 years, who is grand son of Narendra Singh Bhati, filed a representation to the Hon'ble Revenue Minister of govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur on4.4.2011 claiming therein that the gifts of immovable properties made by his grand father, Narendra Singh Bhati in favour of Smt. Krishna Kak and Ms. Kamla Bhalla was hit by provisions of Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908, Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act and Rule 132 of the Rajasthan land Revenue Rules, 1957 and since such gifts deeds were not registered documents, the mutation entries in their favour could not be made and in the representation it was also contended that the order dated 25.5.1970 of the Assistant Revenue Officer was also illegal and same deserved to be quashed and entire land deserved to be restored back in favour of Col. Mohan Singh Bhati. The said representation signed and filed by one Kamal Singh Rathore, Advocate directly before the Hon'ble Revenue Minister, on which the Hon'ble Revenue Ministry appears to have made the following endorsement. "Dy. Secy-1. The application has been submitted by Advoate Shri Kamal Singh Rathore on behalf of Shri Jorawar Singh. Please process the case, based on facts as to what can be the way out to sort out such issue especially where the entire land has been got converted from JDA Jodhpur. Sd/- 4.4.11" 8. Upon this endorsement, the Deputy Secretary appears to have issued the impugned notice/communication Annex.6 dated 20.4.2011 to the present petitioner, the purchaser of part of land to remain present before the Hon'ble Revenue Minister on 26.4.2011. Sd/- 4.4.11" 8. Upon this endorsement, the Deputy Secretary appears to have issued the impugned notice/communication Annex.6 dated 20.4.2011 to the present petitioner, the purchaser of part of land to remain present before the Hon'ble Revenue Minister on 26.4.2011. The petitioner filed preliminary objections before the Hon'ble Revenue Minister on 26.4.2011, a copy of which is produced as Annex.7 with the additional submissions filed on behalf of the petitioner in this Court on 4.5.2011 and, thereafter, the present writ petition was filed by him in this Court on 2.5.2011. This Court issued notices to the respondents on 6.5.2011. This Court issued notices to the respondents on 6.5.2011 and stayed the further proceedings against the petitioner. A reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of respondent No.2 - Jorawar Singh represented by Mr. P.P. Choudhary, Sr. Advocate on 2.8.2011 to which a rejoinder was filed by the petitioner on 2.9.2011 with additional submissions on 9.8.2012, along a copy of the civil suit filed by the Mrigendra Singh, father of respondent No.2 - Jorawar Singh and who is pursuing this litigation also in the Court of learned District Judge, Jodhpur Metro. The State Government has not chosen to file any reply to the writ petition. However, Mr. Anand Purohit, Sr. Advocate and AAG appeared on behalf of the Sate and argued the matter. 9. Mr. N.M. Lodha, Sr. Advocate, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the impugned proceedings initiated by the State Government, rather by the Hon'ble Revenue Minister, Jaipur, purportedly under Section 83 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 are illegal and without jurisdiction and, therefore, the notice in this regard of the Deputy Secretary calling upon the petitioner to appear before the Hon'ble Revenue Minister deserves to be quashed and from the note of Hon'ble Revenue Minister, quoted above, on the said representation of Jorawar Singh, a minor son of Mrigendra Singh Bhati, grand son of Narendra Singh Bhati and great grand son of Col. Mohan Singh Bhati, it appears that the Hon'ble Revenue Minister is bent upon upsetting and reversing the revenue entries made way back in the year 1970 and 1972 and is trying to find 'ways' to undo the same at this belated stage of more than 40 years for extraneous reasons, therefore, the petitioner is left with no other alternative except to invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court for appropriate protection and relief. 10. Elaborating his submissions and relying upon various case laws cited by him, Mr. N.M. Lodha urged that once the question relating to Khtedari and mutation in favour of Col. Mohan Singh Bhati and his son Narendra Singh Bhati and become final at the hands of this Court in the judgment rendered by learned Single Judge on 26.3.1981, affirmed by the Division Bench on 19.2.1982 and such mutation entries recorded under judicial proceedings vide order dated 25.5.1970 have become final, there was no rhyme or reason for the Hon'ble Revenue Minister to venture to reopen those proceedings and entertain frivolous and collusive representation made on behalf of the minor son of Mrigendra Singh Bhati after the death of Col Mohan Singh Bhati in 1995 and as well as Narendra Singh Bhati in 2010. He also relied upon the provisions of Section 83 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act and submitted that the State Government can exercise such revisional power only for non-judicial proceedings and Schedule First of the said act clearly excludes judicial matters including the mutation upon such succession, transfer of otherwise with reference to Section 23 of the said act from the purview of such revisional jurisdiction, since control of judicial matters and all matters connected with settlement are vested in the Board of revenue. Relying upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Col. Mohan Singh Bhati and Narendra Singh Bhati and the statutory provisions and various other case laws cited by him including the judgment in the case of Ram Kumar vs. The Colonization Minister & Anr.- 2007(5) WLC 529, Mr. Relying upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Col. Mohan Singh Bhati and Narendra Singh Bhati and the statutory provisions and various other case laws cited by him including the judgment in the case of Ram Kumar vs. The Colonization Minister & Anr.- 2007(5) WLC 529, Mr. N.M. Lodha urged that the impugned proceedings under Section 83 of the Act are illegal and malafide and the Revenue Minister has no jurisdiction to initiate such proceedings after long lapse of 40 years and, therefore, such proceedings as well as representation made by the minor son Jorawar Singh deserve to be quashed and petitioner purchaser deserves to be protected against such illegal proceedings specially when they have got the agricultural land duly surrendered to State and converted from the competent authority of UIT, Jodhpur as per the provisions of Section 90B of the said Act and the Hon'ble Revenue Minister was quite aware of this legal impediment, as would be clear from his aforequoted Note. 11. Per contra, Mr. P.P. Choudhary, Sr. Advocate appearing for the respondent No.2 - Jorawar Singh urged that the present writ petition is not maintainable and the same is directed only against the notice and the Revenue Minister has also the jurisdiction on behalf of the State Government to give such a notice and the writ petition, therefore, is premature and deserves to be dismissed. Taking the Court through the details of the representation made by Jorawar Singh, he urged that gift of immovable property by unregistered document cannot be recognized in law as the same is hit by Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act, Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act as well as Rule 132 of the Land Revenue Rules and, therefore, the mutation entries made on the basis of alleged unregistered gift deeds in 1970 and 1972 cannot be recognized in law and the revisional jurisdiction of the State Government under Section 83 of the Act can very well be invoked even after long lapse of period of 40 years and the petitioner can very well appear before the Hon'ble Revenue Minister and show cause and since he has already filed the preliminary objections on 26.4.2011 vide Annex.7 and having submitted to the jurisdiction of Hon'ble Revenue Minister, the petitioner cannot maintain the present writ petition before this Court. He, therefore, prayed for dismissal of writ petition. 12. Mr. He, therefore, prayed for dismissal of writ petition. 12. Mr. Anand Purohit, Sr. Advocate and AAG also similarly urged that the writ petition is premature and deserves to be dismissed and the State Government has adequate and ample power to look into the matter in revision and the writ petition of this Court cannot be invoked at this stage. 13. I have heard learned counsels for the parties at length and given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions, record of the case and case laws cited at the bar. 14. The question whether the khatedar rights in favour of Col. Mohan Singh Bhati and his son Mr. Narendra Singh Bhati and whether the mutation entries in their favour under the order Annex.1 dated 25.1.1970 and in 1972 in favour of donees of and attained finality or not has to be looked into with reference to judgment rendered in their favour by this Court upon proceedings against them under the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Acquisition of Land Owners Estate Act, 1963. The learned Single Judge of this Court in two writ petitions filed by Co. Mohan Singh and Narendra Singh Bhati challenging the said proceedings under the 1963 Act, with the factual background of the cases held as under : "2. The relevant facts giving rise to these petitions may be briefly narrated as follows:—Col. Mohan Singh along with his son Narendra Singh was personally cultivating land comprised in Khasra No.4 situated at village Bicharli in District Jodhpur since year 1951 as a tenant of Khudkasht of Maharaja Shri Gaj Singh of Jodhpur. The land including 'Kacholia Beria' was taken by Col. Mohan Singh on lease in the year 1951 from Maharaja Shri Gaj Singh for a period of 10 years and paid Rs. 3800/-, per annum as lease money for the land in question. Subsequent thereto possession of the land known as 'Kacholia beria' was handed over by Col. Mohan Singh, petitioner, to Maharaja Shri Gaj Singh in the year 1961. He however retained 316 bighas of land only in village Bicharli. The lease relating to this land was further extended in the year 1961 for a period of three years and the petitioner paid lease-money for that period. The land which was leased out to Col. Mohan Singh, petitioner, to Maharaja Shri Gaj Singh in the year 1961. He however retained 316 bighas of land only in village Bicharli. The lease relating to this land was further extended in the year 1961 for a period of three years and the petitioner paid lease-money for that period. The land which was leased out to Col. Mohan Singh, petitioner, belonged to the full ownership of His Highness Maharaja Gaj Singh as it was shown in the list of his private properties which was prepared and approved of by Rajasthan Government and the Central Government. 6. After acquiring Khatedari rights in the land in question, the petitioner made several improvements in the land after taking loans from the Orient Bank of Commerce and converted it into a well mechanized farm. Inspite of these facts the Collector, Jodhpur, issued a notice to the petitioner under Section 9A of the Act, as amended upto date, on November 13, 1975 calling upon the petitioner to surrender the possession of the land within 10 days from the receipt of the notice, although the Collector, had no jurisdiction whatsoever to issue such notice to the petitioner, who has become a Khatedar tenant of the land. The petitioner, therefore, prayed in his writ petition for issuance of writ of mandamus, prohibition or any other suitable writ or order for quashing the notice of the Collector, Jodhpur, marked Annexure 9 and for restraining the non-petitioners from ousting the petitioner from his land. 7. In addition to the facts mentioned in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1858 of 1958 of 1975 filed by Col. Mohan Singh, some additional facts are mentioned in Writ Petition No. 1874 of 1975 filed by Narendra Singh which are as follows. 8. Narendra Singh is the son of Col. Mohan Singh. He cultivated land comprised in Khasra No.4 situated in village Bicharli along with his father Col. Mohan Singh since 1951 as a tenant of Khud Khashat of Maharaja Shri Gaj Singh of Jodhpur. Subsequently, in the year 1970 during settlement survey Narendra Singh filed an application before the Assistant Land Records Officer, Jodhpur, that his father Col. Mohan Singh. He cultivated land comprised in Khasra No.4 situated in village Bicharli along with his father Col. Mohan Singh since 1951 as a tenant of Khud Khashat of Maharaja Shri Gaj Singh of Jodhpur. Subsequently, in the year 1970 during settlement survey Narendra Singh filed an application before the Assistant Land Records Officer, Jodhpur, that his father Col. Mohan Singh retained 59 Bighas and 10 Biswas of land in his personal cultivation and gave him the rest of the land for his maintenance and so he caused a well to be dug in the land for irrigation and installed an electric motor on it. Therefore, the land in his possession may be separately entered in the record of rights in his name. The Assistant Land Records Officer, Jodhpur, thereupon, made a detailed enquiry into the matter and after considering the replies of the Tehsildar Jodhpur, representing the State Government and of Maharaja Gaj Singh of Jodhpur, came to a conclusion that Col. Mohan Singh and his son Narendra Singh were tenants of Khudkasht and were in separate possession of their lands in accordance with their internal settlement or arrangement. Consequently, he passed an order on July 26, 1970, that necessary corrections to this effect may be made in the Parcha Khatedari, and, Parcha Lagan may be given to both accordingly. In consequence of this order, out of the land comprised in Khasra No.4 situated in village Bicharli, 256 Bighas of land was entered in the name of Narendra Singh and the rest about 59 Bighas and 10 Biswas of land was shown in cultivatory possession of his father Col. Mohan Singh. The Collector Jodhpur, thereupon, issued a notice to Narendra Singh also under Section 9A of the Act calling upon the latter to hand over possession of 256 Bighas and 10 Biswas of land to the former within 10 days. Narendra Singh also, therefore, prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ, or order for quashing the notice marked Annexure P.4 given to him by the Collector, Jodhpur, and for restraining the non-petitioners from taking over possession of his land in Khasra No. 4 of which he is a Khatedar tenant. 16. I have carefully gone through the entries made in the extracts of Khasra Girdawari and found the contention of Mr. M.D. Purohit, Additional Government Advocate, wholly untenable. 16. I have carefully gone through the entries made in the extracts of Khasra Girdawari and found the contention of Mr. M.D. Purohit, Additional Government Advocate, wholly untenable. In Samvat year 2018 the land measuring 307 Bighas and 11 Biswas was shown in possession of Col. Mohan Singh. It is further shown that in 130 Bighas and 7 Biswas out of this land wheat crops were raised and the rest of the land measuring 177 Bighas and 4 Biswas remained vacant in the possession of Col. Mohan Singh. In Samvat year 2019 this land was again shown in the cultivation of Col. Mohan Singh, but he was recorded as a trespasser in Kharif as well as in rabi. Likewise, in Samvat year 2020 also this land was shown to have been cultivated by Col. Mohan Singh as a trespasser. In Samvat year 2021 Bajra and Moth crops were shown to have been cultivated in 307 Bighas and 11 Biswas of this land and in the remaining 9 Bighas and 16 Biswas of land there was Bajra crop only. The name of the cultivator was not recorded, because after Samvat year 2020, no name of the cultivator was required to be mentioned by the Patwari in the record of the Khasra Girdawari by the Government unless some person other than the previous cultivator had cultivated the land. Hence, it is evident from the record of the Khasra Girdawari that in Samvat year 2021 Col. Mohan Singh had been in cultivatory possession of the land under controversy. No importance can be attached to the word 'Atikaramani' i.e. trespasser used by the Patwari in these entries of Khasra Girdwari of Samvat year 2019 and 2020 for the simple reason that in Samvat year 2018 Col. Mohan Singh was not recorded as a trespasser over this land. There is another reason to hold that the word 'Atikramani' was wrongly mentioned in these entries, because in the column Nos. 5 and 6 pertaining to land owner and the tenant respectively the Patwari had mentioned Sarkar i.e. Government. It is not disputed before me that prior to April 6, 1964, on which date the act can be into force, Maharaja Gaj Singh was the land owner of this entire land and the State government could not be shown as land owner in column No.5 of the Khasra Girdawari. It is not disputed before me that prior to April 6, 1964, on which date the act can be into force, Maharaja Gaj Singh was the land owner of this entire land and the State government could not be shown as land owner in column No.5 of the Khasra Girdawari. Likewise, it is not the case of the State Government that the land in dispute was cultivated by it in Samvat years 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021. Therefore the State Government, i.e. Sarkar could not have been shown as a tenant of this land in column No.6 of the Khasra Girdawari. It will also not be out of place to mention that Maharaja Gaj Singh of Jodhpur, who was the land owner of this entire land, prior to April 6, 1964, nowhere and never stated that Col. Mohan Singh was a cultivator of the land in question as a tenant of Maharaja Gaj Singh of Jodhpur at the commencement of the Act and he was wrongly recorded as a trespasser in Samvat years 2019, 2020and 2021. ^^izkFkZuk i= ntZ jftLVj fd;k tkdj izkFkhZx.k dks lqcqr is'k djus ds vkns'k fn;s x;s izkFkhZx.k us vius izkFkZuk i= dh iqf"V esa fgt-gkbusl tks/kiqj ds gkml gksYM dUVksZyj dk i= fnukad 25-03-70 tks b ,Dl ih 1 gS] is'k fd;k tks 'kkfey i=koyh gS ftlesa mUgksaus izkFkhZx.k dh mtjnkjh dks eatwj fd;k o tkfgj fd;k fd ;g tehu izkFkhZx.k dh gS ;g tehu izkFkhZx.k ds uke ntZ dj nh tk;s rks gesa dksbZ vkifÙk ugha gSA blds vfrfjä izkFkhZx.k us blh Hkwfe ds lEcU/k esa jsosU;w vihysV vksFkjsVh chdkusj dk btyykl dk QSlyk fn- 18-6-63 dh izfrfyfi is'k dh tks 'kkfey i=koyh gS-rglhynkj tks/kiqj ftudh Hkh bl lEcU/k esa ikVhZ cuk;k Fkk vius fyf[kr tokc esa mä Hkwfe fgt gkbusl dh fuft lEifÙk gksuk tkfgj djrs gS] ekStwnk dCtk dk'r izkFkhZx.k dk gksuk cryk;k gS vr% bl Hkwfe ij rglhy dh dksbZ mtj ,rjkt ugha gSA** From a bare reading of this judgment Annexure P.1 it is obvious that the Tehsildar, Jodhpur, representing the State Government was a party to this case, besides the Controller of House Hold representing Maharaja Gaj Singh of Jodhpur. The Tehsildar, Jodhpur, in response to the notice gave a written reply in this case on April 2, 1970, a true copy of which is on the record and is marked Rule 1. The Tehsildar, Jodhpur, in response to the notice gave a written reply in this case on April 2, 1970, a true copy of which is on the record and is marked Rule 1. In the reply, it was admitted by the Tehsildar that No.1 Mohan Singh is in the possession of the land which is recorded as the property of His Highness of Jodhpur. Likewise, it is obvious from the extract of the judgment quoted above that the Controller of the House Hold representing the Maharaja of Jodhpur also gave it in writing that the land belongs to the petitioners and it may be entered in their names. Apart from this, the petitioners have filed Photostat of Parcha lagans issued by the Settlement Department in which Col. Mohan Singh and his son Narendra Singh were entered as Khatedar tenants in respect of this land since Samvat Years 2021 to 2030. Later on, after the commencement of the Act, Col. Mohan Singh gave 256 Bighas and 10 Biswas of this land to his son Narendra Singh for his maintenance, as is evident from the judgment of the Assistant Land Records Officer, Jodhpur, dated May 25, 1970, marked Annexure-2. It is further evident from the receipt marked Annexure P, 3in writ petition No. 1874 of 1957 that Narendra Singh paid rent of 256 Bighas of this land to the revenue authorities from Samvat year 2021 to Samvat year 2029 and likewise Col. Mohan Singh made payment of rent of 59 Bighas and 10 Biswas of his land vide receipts marked Annexures 5 and 6 produced in writ petition No. 1858 of 1975. Hence, it is established that Col Mohan Singh, petitioner, was a tenant of the entire land under controversy forming part of the estate of Maharaja Gaj Singh of Jodhpur, at the commencement of the Act and, later on, Col. Mohan Singh and his son Narendra Singh were recorded as Khatedar tenants of 59 Bighas respectively, because Col. Mohan singh allowed his son Narendra Singh to have 256 Bighas and 10 Biswas of this land for his maintenance, In this view of the matter, Col. Mohan Singh and his son Narendra Singh cannot be said to have been claiming this land through the land owner i.e. Maharaja Gaj Singh of Jodhpur, because Col. Mohan singh allowed his son Narendra Singh to have 256 Bighas and 10 Biswas of this land for his maintenance, In this view of the matter, Col. Mohan Singh and his son Narendra Singh cannot be said to have been claiming this land through the land owner i.e. Maharaja Gaj Singh of Jodhpur, because Col. Mohan Singh was a tenant of this land at the commencement of the Act and, therefore, he must be deemed to be the Khatedar tenant thereof holding from the land owner of the estate under sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Act. The Collector Jodhpur, therefore, had no jurisdiction or power to issue notices marked Annexures 8 and Annexure P.4 to Col. Mohan Singh and Narendra Singh respectively Under Section 9A of the Act requiring them to deliver the possession of the lands under controversy. 19. I have considered the above contention and found it untenable. In my opinion, there is no bar to the issue of the writs claimed by the petitioners, merely because they could file a suit for declaration of their Khatedari rights in the lands under dispute before invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court by way of these writ petitions. The reason is that, as indicated above, the Collector Jodhpur, had no jurisdiction to issue notices to the petitioners under Section 9A of the Act calling upon them to deliver possession of the lands in dispute to him. A suitable writ, direction or order may be issued by this Court preventing authority from acting without jurisdiction and in manifest violation of statutory provisions inspite of the existence of alternative remedy, as such action may cause undue harassment, Apart from this, the alternative remedy suggested by the Additional government Advocate in these cases was not equally effective and satisfactory for the purpose of meeting the ends of justice, as no suit for declaration of Khatedari rights can be instituted by the petitioners against the State Government or the Collector until the expiration of two months next after notice in writing was delivered to them. If the petitioners had resorted to this alternative remedy they would have been ousted from the lands in their possession before they could get interim relief because even under sub-section (2) of Section 80 C.P.C. the Court is not empowered to grant relief in the suit whether interim or otherwise except after giving to the Government or to the Collector a reasonable opportunity of showing cause in respect of the relief prayed for in the suit. Consequently, I am of the view that the alternative remedy suggested by the Additional Government Advocate was inadequate and this Court is not deprived of its discretion to issue the writs in the particular circumstances of these cases. 20. Consequently, both the writ petitions are accepted and the notices Annexures 8 and Annexure P.4 issued to Col. Mohan Singh and his son Narendra Singh respectively by the Collector, Jodhpur under Section 9A of the Act are quashed and the non-petitioners are restrained from recovering possession of the lands in dispute from the petitioners under Section 9A of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Acquisition of Land Owners Estates Act, 1964. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. 15 . The aforesaid judgment of learned Single Judge came to be assailed by State Government in an intra court appeal before the Division Bench but the said appeal was dismissed on 19.2.1982 by the bench headed by the then Acting Chief Justice D.P. Gupta with Justice M.B. Sharma, J.J. in the following terms: "Section 6(1) provides that every person, who, at the commencement of the Act, is or is entered in the revenue records as a tenant or a tenant of khud kasht of any land forming part or an estate shall be deemed to be the khatedar tenant of such land, holding from the land owner of the estate. This provision envisages two contingencies in which the legal fiction may come into operation and a person may be deemed to be a khatedar tenant of such land which he held earlier from the land owner of the estate in either of the two situations, namely, (a) if the person was a tenant of any legal forming part of an estate at the commencement of the Act, or (b) if such person was entered in the revenue record as a tenant of such land at the time of the commencement of the Act. argued before us that the writ petitions were entered as 'Aatikramanis" (vkfrØeuh) i.e. trespassers in the revenue records at the time of the commencement of the Act and as such they could not be considered to have acquired the status of khatedar tenants by virtue of the provisions of Section 6(1) of the Act. We are unable to accept this contention. As already pointed out above, the legal fiction envisaged in Section 6(1) is applicable on the fulfillment of either of the two conditions enumerated therein and even if the second contingency viz., that the person concerned was entered as a tenant of such lands in the revenue records may not have been fulfilled in the case of the writ petitioners, yet as the writ petitioners were actually tenants of the disputed land, which formed part of the estate, before or at the time of the commencement of the Act and were recognized as such by the officials of the State viz., the Tehsildar and the Assistant Records Officer we fail to appreciate as to why the writ petitioners should not be deemed to be khatedar tenants of such lands holdings from the land owner thereof, Shri Gaj Singh, for the purpose of Section 6(1) of the Act. We are, therefore, of the view that the writ petitioners having acquired khatedari rights by virtue of deeming provisions contained in Section 6(1) of the Act the appellant State was not entitled to recover possession of the said lands under Section 9-A of the Act from the writ petitioners. As such we uphold the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Both the special appeals have no force and are hereby dismissed." 16. Therefore, as far as khatedari rights of late Col. As such we uphold the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Both the special appeals have no force and are hereby dismissed." 16. Therefore, as far as khatedari rights of late Col. Mohan Singh Bhati and his son Narendra Singh are concerned, that issue had become final and concluded with the aforesaid judgments of this court and no lower court or even the Hon'ble Revenue Minister in exercise of powers under Section 83 of the Act can upset those proceedings, since the judicially settled things cannot be undone or unsettled in revisional powers of the State Government. 17. This Court in Ram Kumar's case (supra) quashed such proceedings under Section 83 of the Act sought to be exercised by the Colonization Minister against the issue of allotment of land settled at the level of Board of Revenue by observing as under: "4. Section 83 of 1956 Act empowers the State Government to call for the record of any non-judicial proceedings not connected with settlement. Section 83 reads as under: "Section 83. Power of Government to call for records and revise order - the State Government may call for the record of any non-judicial proceedings not connected with settlement held by any officer subordinate to it, and may pass such orders as it may thinks fit." 5. Sub-sec. (2) of Section 23 of 1956 Act defines "Judicial Matters" thus: "The expression "Judicial Matter" means a proceeding in which revenue Court or officer has to determine the rights and liabilities of the parties and the proceedings and orders as well as appeals, revision and references in the case specified in the First Schedule shall be deemed to be judicial matters for the purpose of this Act." 6. Since allotment of land is not included in First Schedule, it is not a judicial matter in view of sub-section (2) of Section 23 but the matter in regard to allotment of land decided by the Board of Revenue cannot be revised by the State Government or its Minister under Section 83 of 1956 Act. The Revenue board has been created under the act and when it discharges its functions as Court, in my opinion, it becomes the judicial branch of State like regular civil Courts. It is as such expected of it to have judicial independence in dealing with the matters before it as is expected of the other civil court. The Revenue board has been created under the act and when it discharges its functions as Court, in my opinion, it becomes the judicial branch of State like regular civil Courts. It is as such expected of it to have judicial independence in dealing with the matters before it as is expected of the other civil court. The orders of Board of Revenue can only be interfered by the High Court and none other. The Cabinet Minister of the State has no jurisdiction to interfere with the orders passed by the Board of Revenue on judicial side. Thus in the instant case the Colonization Minister had no jurisdiction to interfere with the judgment rendered by the Board of Revenue." 18. The power of revision under Section 83 of the State Government can be exercised only with respect to non-judicial proceedings not connected with settlement. Section 23 of the Act clearly defines, "Judicial Matters", First Schedule of the Act read with Section 23 makes it clear that the disputes as to entries in the record of rights and annual registers and even mutation upon succession, transfer or otherwise are clearly included in the list of judicial matters in the First Schedule. The relevant provisions of Section 23, 83 and Schedule First are reproduced hereunder for ready reference:- "Section 23. Controlling Power.—(1) The control of all non-judicial matters connected with revenue in the State other than matters connected with settlement is vested in the State Government and the control of all judicial matters and of all matter connected with settlement is vested in the Board. (2) The expression 'judicial matters' means a proceeding in which a revenue court or officer has to determine the rights and liabilities of the parties thereto and the proceedings and orders as well as appeals, revisions and references in the cases specified in the first Schedule shall be deemed to the judicial matters for the purposes of this Act. Section 83. Power of government to call for records and revise orders.—The State Government may call for the record of any non-judicial proceedings not connected with settlement held by any officer subordinate to it, and may pass thereon such orders as it thinks fit." "First Schedule (See Section 3) List of Judicial Matters 1. Claims under sub-section (2) of Section 88. 2. Disputes with respect of the right of grazing cattle on pasturage land. 3. Claims under sub-section (2) of Section 88. 2. Disputes with respect of the right of grazing cattle on pasturage land. 3. Disputes as to the right of user over forest growth and exclusion from forest land. 4. Settlement of boundary disputes. 5. Disputes as to entries in the record-of-rights and annual registers. 6. Disputes respecting the class or tenure of tenants. 7. Mutation upon succession, transfer or otherwise. 8. Disputes regarding the rent or revenue payable. 9. Disputes concerning Wajb-ul-arz or Dastoor Ganwai. 10. Inquiry into and assessment of lands held free of revenue or rent. 11. Partition and consolidation of estates. 12. Imposition of fines, penalties, forfeitures and confiscation under this Act, 13. Determination of compensation 14. Sales and auctions under this Act. 15. Such other matters as may be prescribed by the State Govt." 19. From the bare perusal of the representation made by Jorawar Singh, it is clear that he wants to challenge the said mutation entries in favour of Col. Mohan Singh Bhati and Narendra Singh Bhati, he never raised any dispute with regard to mutation of 256.10 bighas of land in favour of his son Narendra Singh Bhati under the order Annex.1 dated 25.5.1970 nor mutation in favour of donees under Gift Deeds of his son Narendra Singh Bhati though he very well knew it and, therefore, the great gradn son, a minor, cannot be permitted to raise such a dispute under the garb of challenging the gifts made by his grand father Narendra Singh Bhati in favour of aforesaid two ladies through unregistered gift deeds, which transactions acquired finality and settled in due course of time, by invoking the jurisdiction of Hon'ble Revenue Minister after 40 years of same. The representation made by Jorawar Singh is nothing but a tangent attack by misuse of such power of the Hon'ble Revenue Minister of the State government, if any. The said dispute with regard to revenue entries in the revenue record including mutation entries are undoubtedly "judicial matters" covered by clause 5 and 7 of the First Schedule of the Act and, therefore Section 83 of the Act is simply not applicable in this case and hence the representation itself is without any authority of law rendering the initiation of proceedings by the Hon'ble Revenue Minister without jurisdiction and void ab initio. No other provision of law is referred or relied upon by respondents for invoking such powers by the Hon'ble Revenue Minister. 20. The impugned proceedings not only are outside the scope and ambit of Section 83 of the act but the manner in which they have been in initiated, it is amply clear from the Note in the handwriting of the Hon'ble Revenue Minister Mr. Hema Ram Choudhary that the Hon'ble Revenue Minister was trying to the find the ways out to sort out such issues', which phrase may smack of some extraneous factors, specially knowing the limitation that the land stands regularized and converted by the JDA, Jodhpur under the provisions of Section 90B of the Act, which is done after satisfying about the title of the person applying for such regularization and conversion. One fails to understand what way was sought to be found out and for what purpose and why such a notice was given only to the petitioner, one of the purchasers of land and why not to the donor and donees. Such bent upon exercise of revisional power by the Hon'ble Revenue Minister insisting upon the ways and means to be found to upset the settled transactions and revenue records amply speaks of the unholy alliance and reaching out to exercise the jurisdiction which neither vested with the Hon'ble Revenue Minister nor such action lies within the four corners of law. Such proceedings without jurisdiction and exfacie illegal can make a serious dent in the good governance and, therefore, the petitioner and his likes deserve to be protected against such threatened illegal action by exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 21. The apprehension of the petitioner against such foregone conclusions drawn by the Hon'ble Minister are adequately reflected in the additional submissions made by the petitioner before this Court on 4.5.2011. Para 2 of which is reproduced hereunder for ready reference : "2. That a bare perusal of the note appended on the application filed on behalf of Jorawar Singh would also show that the Hon'ble Revenue Minister wanted to search way out knowing it very well that land has already been converted from agriculture to residential. Various other aspects were also explained before the Hon'ble Revenue Minister, however thereafter the case was fixed for 3.5.2011. Various other aspects were also explained before the Hon'ble Revenue Minister, however thereafter the case was fixed for 3.5.2011. On 3.5.2011 again additional preliminary objections were submitted and it was pointed out that at least record of the case should be called on the basis of which the order dated 25.5.1970 was passed. So also, it was again pointed out that Hon'ble High Court treated late Shri Narendra Singh as tenant and copy of judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court passed in D.B.S.A.W. No. 154/1981 (State of Rajasthan vs. Narendra Singh) was produced. The copies of the objections submitted before the Hon'ble Revenue Minister are submitted herewith and marked as Annexure 7 and Annexure 8 respectively. It is also worthwhile to submit here that though it was informed that concerned Revenue Authorities were called for 18.05.2011 but the Hon'ble Revenue Minister insisted for hearing on 03.05.2011 even in absence of record and concerned persons from Revenue Department. Requests were made that without record case cannot be heard but the Hon'ble Revenue Minister said that even without record case may be argued. Meaning thereby, the Hon'ble Revenue Minister wants to decide the alleged application/ representation submitted on behalf of Jorawar Singh even without looking into the record and without giving any hearing. Repeatedly, it was pointed out that Hon'ble High Court has already considered the order dated 25.05.1970 and, so also it was pointed out that proceedings for correction of revenue entries were initiated on the application of Col. Mohan Singh (great grand father of Jorawar Singh) but he never raised any objection against the order dated 25.05.1970 though he enjoyed the order dated 25.05.1970 for about 25 years, hence none of the descendants of Col. Mohan Singh cannot seek interference in the order dated 25.05.1970. But no heed has been paid by the Hon'ble Revenue Minister. In such circumstances, the action of the Hon'ble Revenue Minister, State of Rajasthan suffers with malice in law and, so also, it is wholly without jurisdiction and also amounting to arbitrary." 22. Therefore, malice in law can be inferred in the initiation of such proceedings and the preliminary objection raised by the respondents that the writ petition is premature is liable to be rejected and writ jurisdiction in such cases even against the notice deserves to be invoked by this Court. 23. Therefore, malice in law can be inferred in the initiation of such proceedings and the preliminary objection raised by the respondents that the writ petition is premature is liable to be rejected and writ jurisdiction in such cases even against the notice deserves to be invoked by this Court. 23. Besides the point that the matter relating to revenue entries and dispute for that fall in the First Schedule of the Act and, thus, being a "judicial matter" does not attract Section 83 of the Act, it is also significant to note that powers of such suo moto revision conferred upon the State government under Section 83 of the Act has been delegated by the State government to the Board of Revenue by two Notifications. the first Notification issued in this regard is Notification No.F.4(3) Rev./Col.67 dated 17.4.1967 published in Rajasthan Extra Ordinary Gazette dated 18.4.1967, which is quoted below for ready reference. "COLONISATION DEPARTMENT NOTIFICATION Jaipur, April 17, 1967 No F. 4(3) Rev./Col./67.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (Rajasthan Act XV of 1956), the State Government hereby delegates all its powers under Section 83 of the said Act to the Board of Revenue; and further in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the said Act, the State Government hereby transfers to the Board of Revenue for disposal all the pending cases under Section 83 of the said Act. By Order of the Governor, S.D. Ujjawal, Addl. Chief Secretary to Government." 24. The aforesaid Notification was issued by Colonization Department and another Notification was issued by the Revenue Department itself on 23.8.72 vide Notification No.P.6(46) Raj.Gr.4172, S.O.101 published in Part 'C' of the Rajasthan Gazette on 24.8.1972, which is also reproduced hereunder for ready reference: ^^jktLo ¼xzqi-4½ foHkkx vf/klwpuk t;iqj] vxLr 23] 1972 ,l-vks- 101%& jktLFkku Hkw-jktLo vf/kfu;e] 1956 ¼jktLFkku vf/kfu;e la- 15 lu~ 1956½ dh /kkjk 262 ds mi-/kkjk ¼1½ ds [k.M ¼d½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfä;ksa ds iz;ksx ls] jkT; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk mä vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 83 ds v/khu viuh 'kfä;ksa dks jktLo e.My] jktLFkku ds fy;s izR;k;ksftr djrh gSA ¼la[;k i-6¼46½ jkt- xzqi-4172½ jkT;iky ds vkns'k ls] x.kirjke mi 'kklu lfpo ¼jktLo½** 25. Thus, with the aforesaid delegation of powers by the State Govt. Thus, with the aforesaid delegation of powers by the State Govt. under Sec.83 of the Act to the Board of Revenue, the Hon'ble Revenue Minister simply had no jurisdiction in the matter even if the conditions for invoking Section 83 of the Act could be said to be available in the matter, which, as shown above, were not so available. For this reason also, the impugned proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction and deserve to be quashed. 26. There is yet another aspect of the matter and that is the delay of about 40 years in making such a frivolous and collusive representation directly to the Hon'ble Revenue Minister at the instance of a minor. Since no limitation under Section 83 of the Act has been provided as such, the settled legal position in this regard is that where no such limitation is prescribed, such powers can be invoked only within a reasonable time. The long lapse of 40 years simply cannot be said to be a reasonable period by any stretch of imagination. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Shri Santoshkumar Shivgonda Patil and Ors. vs. Shri Balasaheb Tukaram Shevale and Ors. - (2009) 9 SCC 352 dealing with the provisions of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1976, Section 257, which contained the similar suo moto revisional powers, as are contained in Section 83 of the Act here, held in para 1 to 13 as under:- "11. It seems to be fairly settled that if a statute does not prescribe the time limit for exercise of revisional power, it does not mean that such power can be exercised at any time; rather it should be exercised within a reasonable time. It is so because the law does not expect a settled thing to be unsettled after a long lapse of time. Where the legislature does not provide for any length of time within which the power of revision is to be exercised by the authority, suo motu or otherwise, it is plain that exercise of such powers within reasonable time is inherent therein. 12. Ordinarily, the reasonable period within which power of revision may be exercised would be three years under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code subject, of course, to be exceptional circumstances in a given case, but surely exercise of revisional power after a lapse of 17 yeas is not a reasonable time. 12. Ordinarily, the reasonable period within which power of revision may be exercised would be three years under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code subject, of course, to be exceptional circumstances in a given case, but surely exercise of revisional power after a lapse of 17 yeas is not a reasonable time. Invocation of revisional power by the Sub-Divisional Officer under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code is plainly an abuse of process in the facts and circumstances of the case assuming that the order of Tehsildar passed on March 30, 1976 is flawed and legally not correct. 13. Pertinently, Tukaram Sakharam Shevale, during his lifetime never challenged the legality and correctness of the order of Tehsildar, Shirol although it was passed on March 30, 1976 and he was alive upto 1990. It is not even in the case of Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 that Tukaram was not aware of the order dated March 30, 1976. There is no finding by the Sub-Divisional Officer either that order dated Mach 30, 1976 was obtained fraudulently." 27. Similarly, the Division Bench of this Court headed by then Chief Justice in the case of Anand Lal vs. State of Rajasthan - 1995(1) RLR 555 , dealing with the reference under Section 232 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and Section 82 of the Land Revenue Act, held in para 24 and 25 that such powers cannot be exercised even after expiry of one year. The relevant portion is quoted below: "To permit the exercise of revisional powers under Section 82 of the Act of 1956 and/or under Section 232 o the act of 1955 after unreasonable delay, would amount to putting imprimatur of the Courts on the unreasonable and arbitrary exercise of power. 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 the land, he would have entered into several transactions on this basis and made many commitments. Therefore, ordinarily revisional powers under Section 232 of the Act of 1955, cannot be exercised after a period of one year. If this requirement of reasonable length of time is not read into the aforesaid provisions, the provisions would become unconstitutional." 28. Therefore, ordinarily revisional powers under Section 232 of the Act of 1955, cannot be exercised after a period of one year. If this requirement of reasonable length of time is not read into the aforesaid provisions, the provisions would become unconstitutional." 28. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Raj Narain Sarin vs. Laxmi Devi & Ors. - 2002(10) SCC 501 observed that after 40 years a challenge to transfer of land held by sale-deed executed by predecessor of plaintiff cannot be sustained and plaint in such cases is to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The relevant portion of the said judgment is quoted below for ready reference: "4. It is significant to note that the transfer of a portion of the property in the year 1941 has not been challenged or disputed in any way. On the contrary, it has been averred (vide paragraph 9 of the plaint) that the second area, i.e., 6 Bighas 13 Biswas being plot No.673 (old) and new 460 was sold without any authority and contra recital in the said sale deed is illegal and invalid and not binding on the Plaintiff. Learned Additional District Judge however having considered the same and came to the conclusion that it was with the knowledge of the Plaintiff that such sale did take place and since the Plaintiff has not taken any steps in the mater or having the document of sale declared invalid or not binding or ineffective, it is too late to contend the same at this stage. 8. On an analysis of the plaint, apart from there being a mere bald statement that the sale deed has nothing to do with the rest of the area, i.e., 6 Bighas 13 Biswas and the Bungalows built thereon which stands to be owned and possessed by the Plaintiff and prior to him by Munni Lal, there is No. other averments tracing the title for 6 Bighas and 13 Biswas Admittedly, several portions of the plot stood demarcated as being 3 Bighas 13 Biswas and the other being 6 bighas 13 Biswas: whereas there is No dispute as regards 3 Bighas 13 Biswas but the conferment of title on to the Plaintiff as regards 6 Bighas 13 Biswas is not available in the plaint itself. The plaint is totally silent on that score, though, however, the existence of the deed of sale noticed above stands accepted by the Plaintiff. The litigation, in our view, cannot but be termed to be utterly vexatious and abuse of the process of court, more so by reason of the fact that the deed of sale being executed as early as 1941 stands unassailed for a period of over 50 years. The decision of this Court in T. Arvandandam (supra) has its due application and having regard to the decision as noticed above and upon consideration of the relevant provisions as engrafted in the Code itself, have no hesitation in accepting the order of learned Additional District Judge. The High Court obviously fell into a manifest error and as such this appeal is allowed. The order of the High Court stands set aside. The order of the learned Additional District Judge stands restored. No order as to costs." 29. The authorities on this issue need not be multiplied as there are large number of them and, therefore, it can be deduced that exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 83 of the Act even by a competent authority of the State Government after such a long lapse of period of 40 years would be illegal, time barred and unauthorized. 30. The question relating to validity of Gift Deeds cannot be raised by a minor. The remedy in law, if any, can be only a properly instituted civil suit, which is said to have been filed by Mrigendra Singh S/o Narendra Singh Bhati. In view of this, these contentions need not be examined by this Court in the present case in detail. As aforesaid, the transaction and such transfers made even by unregistered Gift Deeds cannot be unsettled by a challenge laid after 40-50 years of the same, otherwise there would be never a finality to those entries in the Revenue record, which have held the field for such a long period. 31. Therefore, viewed from any angle, this Court is firmly of the view that the initiation of proceedings against the petitioner in the present case under Section 83 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 by the Hon'ble Revenue Minister, at the instance of respondent No.2 - Jorawar Singh, a minor son of Mrigendra Singh and grand son of Narendra Singh Bhati, was absolutely without jurisdiction and void ab initio. Therefore, the impugned notice as well as initiation of proceedings by the Hon'ble Revenue Minister by a Note on such representation of the respondent Jorawar Singh, as quoted above, deserve to be quashed and treated as null and void and writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be allowed. 32. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and impugned notice Annex.6 dated 20.4.2011 and Note dated 4.4.2011 on the representation of the petitioner by the Hon'ble Revenue Minister made on 4.4.2011 and the subsequent proceedings pending with the Hon'ble Revenue Minister in this case are quashed. No costs. Copy of this judgment be sent to the Board of Revenue and revenue Courts below and the Chief Secretary of the State Government.