Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2096 (RAJ)

LR’s of late Bismillah v. State of Rajasthan

2013-11-26

GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - Instant writ petition was filed by late Smt. Bismillah W/o late Shakur Mohammad to challenge the order of reference dated 30.1.2001 passed by the Collector, Jodhpur and order passed by the Board of Revenue dated 27.3.2002 whereby in the reference proceedings the Board of Revenue quashed the mutation Nos. 89 and 109 of village Banar (Jodhpur district) and declared the land in question as Government land. 2. During the pendency of this writ petition, the original petitioner Smt. Bismillah died. Thereafter, an application was filed by the legal heirs of late Smt. Bismillah upon that they were taken on record vide order dated 20.11.2008. 3. As per facts of the case, the original petitioner Smt. Bismillah purchase agriculture land situated in Khasra Nos. 403, 409 and 419, measuring 34 bigha 19 biswa in village Banar Tehsil and District Jodhpur from original khatedar Sher Khan S/o Kale Khan vide registered sale-deed dated 29.7.1966. The mutation was sanctioned on the basis of the said registered sale-deed vide Mutation Nos. 89/1 and 109 by the revenue authorities in favour of late Smt. Bismillah. The land in question was previously held by late Sher Khan S/o Kale Khan being tenant/bapidar and it was transferred through registered sale-deed vide sale-deed dated 29.7.1966 in favour of Smt. Bismillah. 4. The State Government ejected Smt. Bismillah from the land in question without giving any compensation and handed over the possession of the land to the Defence knowing it well that Smt. Bismillah is khatedar of the land in question. Smt. Bismillah raised objection upon which acquisition proceedings was initiated vide notification dated 7.8.1987 while issuing notice under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in which notice was issued to the original petitioner Smt. Bismillah which is evident from the notification dated 7.8.1987. 5. Smt. Bismillah raised objection upon which acquisition proceedings was initiated vide notification dated 7.8.1987 while issuing notice under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in which notice was issued to the original petitioner Smt. Bismillah which is evident from the notification dated 7.8.1987. 5. After issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, a notification under Section 5-A was issued and when no steps were taken by the respondents for payment of compensation, then, late Smt. Bismillah preferred writ petition before this Court, being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2337/1992, against the State for determination of amount and payment of compensation, Learned Single Judge of this Court decided the said writ petition on 8.12.1993 whereby the Collector, Jodhpur was directed to decide the question whether the petitioner is khatedar tenant of the land in question or not and, further orderet that if it is found that the petitioner is khatedar tenant of this land, then, whatever compensation is payable the payment be made for which she is entitled. Late Smt. Bismillah was directed to appear before the District Collector Jodhpur and granted opportunity to produce all record pertaining to her khatedari rights and the District Collector, Jodhpur was directed to pass proper order in accordant with law after hearing the petitioner within a period of two months from the of order. 6. The District Collector complied with the aforesaid order vide its order dated 30.3.1994 whereby although it is accepted that name of Smt. Bismillah is enters in the khatedari but gave further finding in the order that Sher Khan S/o Kale Khan from whom late Smt. Bismillah purchased the land through registered sale-deed was not khatedar tenant of the land in question, therefore, the District Collector, Jodhpur issued direction to the Tehsildar Jodhpur to proceed to make reference under Section 82 of the Act to the Board of Revenue within a period of one month from the date of order. 7. The Tehsildar Jodhpur filed an application before the District Collector, Jodhpur for making reference to the Board of Revenue in pursuance of the directions so issued on 30.3.1995 by the District Collector, Jodhpur and the District Collector, Jodhpur made reference under Section 82 to the Board of Revenue, Ajmer against Mutation Nos. 89 and 109 dated 4.12.1966 vide order dated 30.1.2001. 8. 89 and 109 dated 4.12.1966 vide order dated 30.1.2001. 8. After making reference to the Board of Revenue, the Board of Revenue decided the reference vide judgment dated 27.3.2012 (Annex.-10) which is impugned in this writ petition, in which, Mutation Nos. 89 and 109 of village Banar (Tehsil and District Jodhpur) were quashed and the Board of Revenue issued direction to treat the land in question as Government land. 9. In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the validity of order passed by the District Collector, Jodhpur dated 30.1.2001 whereby reference was made to the Board of Revenue, so also, the order dated 27.3.2002 passed by the Board of Revenue. 10. Learned Sr. Advocate Mr. Lekh Raj Mehta, assisted by Advocate Mr. Sunil Beniwal, appearing for the petitioners vehemently argued that admittedly the land in question was purchased by late Smt. Bismillah through registered sale-deed dated 29.7.1966 and while inviting attention of this Court towards additional affidavit filed in pursuance of the order passed by this Court that in all the revenue records earlier name of Kale Khan S/o Chune Khan was entered which is evident from Annex.R-5 and, later on, after his death, the land was mutated in the name of Sher Khan S/o Kale Khan which is evident from the revenue record Annex.R-5 filed along with the writ petition; and, admittedly late Smt. Bismillah purchased the said land situated in Khasra Nos. 403, 409 and 419, measuring 34 bigha 19 biswa in village Banar (Tehsil and District Jodhpur) from Sher Khan who was khatedar tenant as per the revenue record but all these facts were not properly considered by the District Collector, Jodhpur and arbitrarily made reference under Section 82 of the Land Revenue Act. 11. Learned Sr. Advocate Mr. 403, 409 and 419, measuring 34 bigha 19 biswa in village Banar (Tehsil and District Jodhpur) from Sher Khan who was khatedar tenant as per the revenue record but all these facts were not properly considered by the District Collector, Jodhpur and arbitrarily made reference under Section 82 of the Land Revenue Act. 11. Learned Sr. Advocate Mr. L.R. Mehta, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, vehemently argued that in the earlier writ petition the only direction was issued by this Court to decide the question whether the petitioner is khatedar tenant of the land in question or not but the District Collector, Jodhpur while making compliance of the order passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2337/1992, decided on 9.12.1993, exceeded its jurisdiction and erroneously held that the land in question was wrongly entered in the name of Kale Khan and Sher Khan and gave direction to the Tehsildar, Jodhpur to proceed to make reference under Section 82 of the Act of 1956 for correction in the revenue record. 12. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further argued that the land in question was purchased in the year 1966 and name of Sher Khan S/o Kale Khan was mutated in his favour in the year 1962 after death of his father Kale Khan, therefore, there was no question to make reference against the said mutation after long delay so as to deprive the petitioner from the fruits of compensation. The District Collector, Jodhpur committed a grave error while making compliance of the order passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2337/1992, decided on 9.12.1993 in directing the Tehsildar, Jodhpur to make reference, therefore, the whole proceedings for cancellation of mutation under Section 82 of the Act of 1956 deserves to be quashed. 13. It is also argued that for the land in question the State Government cannot fall within the definition of expression "person interested", therefore, reference at the instance of the Department is void. So also, the finding given by the Board of Revenue deserves to be quashed. 13. It is also argued that for the land in question the State Government cannot fall within the definition of expression "person interested", therefore, reference at the instance of the Department is void. So also, the finding given by the Board of Revenue deserves to be quashed. As per the submission, late Smt. Bismillah was bona fide purchaser of the land in question from Sher Khan whose name was entered as khatedar tenant in the revenue record, therefore, the District Collector was under obligation to consider this aspect of the matter while directing the Tehsildar, Jodhpur to make reference under Section 82 of the Land Revenue Act, 1956 but the Collector, Jodhpur gave complete good-bye to the legal rights of late Smt. Bismillah being purchaser of the land in question. 14. Argument of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that reference has been made at the behest of the District Collector by the Tehsildar, Jodhpur under Section 82 of the District Collector itself and the District Collector, Jodhpur himself referred the matter as directed by himself in the order dated 30.3.1995 which is compliance order passed in pursuance of the judgment dated 9.12.1993 passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2337/1992 filed by late Smt. Bismillah, therefore, it is case of arbitrariness and exceeding jurisdiction by the District Collector, Jodhpur. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that all proceedings are undertaken after giving notice to Smt. Bismillah and not to Sher Khan from whom Smt. Bismillah purchased the land in the year 1966, therefore, there was no question of making reference after this belated stage and, that, too, not by the person aggrieved but as per the direction of the District Collector, therefore, the order impugned may be quashed. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited attention of the Court towards following judgments rendered by this Court for the question of limitation and competency of the reference: "(1) 1975 RLW 127 (2) 1996(1) RLW 396 (3) 2005(3) WLC 688 (4) 2006(1) WLC 552" 17. While inviting attention towards the above judgments, it is submitted that this writ petition may be allowed and order impugned passed by the Board of Revenue dated 27.3.2002 may be quashed whereby reference made under Section 82 of the Land Revenue Act, 1956 vide judgment dated 30.1.2001 by the District Collector was accepted. 18. While inviting attention towards the above judgments, it is submitted that this writ petition may be allowed and order impugned passed by the Board of Revenue dated 27.3.2002 may be quashed whereby reference made under Section 82 of the Land Revenue Act, 1956 vide judgment dated 30.1.2001 by the District Collector was accepted. 18. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during pendency of this writ petition, in another writ petition, being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5971/2003, certain directions were issued by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 15.1.2008 and, in pursuance of the said order the writ petition was disposed of by directing the respondents to undertake and conclude the appropriate land acquisition proceedings for acquisition of the land under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and, in pursuance of that, award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer (Sub Divisional Officer), Jodhpur on 4.7.2008 whereby compensation has been determined by the said authority while including the name of Smt. Bismillah in the order, therefore, the respondents may further be directed to pay compensation in lieu to acquisition of the land of the petitioners. 19. Per contra, Mr. Sandeep Bhandawat, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, submits that although certain directions were issued by the Coordinate Bench of this Court while deciding S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2337/1992 with regard to deciding the question whether the original petitioner late Smt. Bismillah is khatedar of the land in question or not; and, upon perusal of all the documents although in the revenue records it is found that the petitioner Smt. Bismillah is khatedar tenant but upon inquiry it has come out that Sher Khan from whom petitioner Smt. Bismillah purchased the land was not khatedar of the land in question and the land was wrongly mutated in his name, therefore, the District Collector, Jodhpur passed an order dated 30.3.1995 whereby directions were issued to the Tehsildar, Jodhpur for making reference under Section 82 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act and, upon that, the District Collector, Jodhpur made reference vide order dated 30.1.2001 to the Board of Revenue after considering the entire revenue record in proper manner. The Board of Revenue rightly held that the mutation made in favour of Sher Khan was wrong and he was not actually having any khatedari right on the date of sale of the land to Smt. Bismillah, therefore, there is no error in the orders impugned in this writ petition. 20. For the question of limitation, it is submitted by learned counsel for the respondent State that if any illegality is found in the revenue record, then, it is obligatory duty of the authorities of the State to take recourse of law for which the question of delay, laches or limitation will not come in way, therefore, contention of the petitioners with regard to delay and limitation in making the reference under Section 82 is not sustainable in law; more so, it is case in which the District Collector, Jodhpur performed his duty in right manner, therefore, this writ petition may be dismissed. 21. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have carefully considered entire record of the case. In this case following facts are not in dispute: i) Admittedly, the land situated in Khasra Nos. 403, 409 and 419, measuring 34 bigha 19 biswa was purchased by original petitioner late Smt. Bismillah from one Sher Khan vide registered sale-deed dated 29.7.1966. ii) Admittedly, in the notice issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act which is placed on record as Annex.5 a notice was issued to the petitioner as khatedar tenant of the land situated in Khasra Nos. 403, 409 and 419. iii) Admittedly, the land in question was acquired for the defence and handed over to the defence and compensation has been deposited by the Central Government to the State Government. iv) Admittedly when compensation was not paid to the original petitioner Smt. Bismillah she preferred writ petition before this Court and the same was registered as S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2337/1992 which was decide vide order dated 8.12.1993, in which, following directions were issued: "In these circumstances, I allow this writ petition and direct the Collector that he shall decide the question that whether the petitioner is a khatedari tenant of this land or not. If it is found that the petitioner is a khatedari tenant of this land then whatever compensation. She is entitled should be paid to her from the date, it is decided. If it is found that the petitioner is a khatedari tenant of this land then whatever compensation. She is entitled should be paid to her from the date, it is decided. The petitioner shall appear before the Collector and produce all the record pertaining to her khatedari tenant and the Collector shall pass the proper order in accordance with law after hearing the petitioner. This should be done within a period of two months from today and thereafter if it is found that the petitioner entitled to compensation then that amount should be determined and it should be paid to the petitioner within three months thereafter." v) Admittedly, the Tehsildar made reference under Section 82 of the Act of 1956 as per the directions issued by the District Collector vide order dated 30.3.1995 passed in compliance of the order passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2337/1992, decided on 8.12.1993. Admittedly, in pursuance of the directions issued by the District Collector to the Tehsildar, Jodhpur, the Tehsildar filed application for reference before the District Collector, Jodhpur upon which the District Collector, Jodhpur made reference under Section 82 of the Land Revenue Act, 1956 to the Board of Revenue. 22. Upon consideration of the entire facts and arguments advanced by both the parties, it is abundantly clear that the land which is purchased by late Smt. Bismillah situated in Khasra Nos. 403, 409 and 419 was handed over to the defence for which acquisition proceedings was initiated under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and notice under Section 5-A of the Act was issued to late Smt. Bismillah, original petitioner; meaning thereby, the Land Acquisition Officer, after considering the revenue record found that late Smt. Bismillah is khatedar tenant of the land in question. After filing reply by the original petitioner Smt. Bismillah to the notice issued under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act when no compensation was made, then, in compelling circumstances a writ petition was preferred before this Court in which directions were issued to the District Collector to decide the question of khatedari rights. 23. After filing reply by the original petitioner Smt. Bismillah to the notice issued under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act when no compensation was made, then, in compelling circumstances a writ petition was preferred before this Court in which directions were issued to the District Collector to decide the question of khatedari rights. 23. Upon perusal of the compliance order dated 30.3.1995, it is revealed that the District Collector after perusing the revenue record came to the conclusion that name of Smt. Bismillah found place in the revenue record as khatedar tenant but gave finding that the said mutation in favour of Smt. Bismillah was made under the registered sale-deed dated 29.7.1966 by which Smt. Bismillah purchased the land in question from one Sher Khan who was the original tenant of the land in question. 24. Instant writ petition was listed in the Court on 6.4.2012 and, on that date, an order was made to produce the revenue record up to the year 1966 with regard to the land in question. The petitioner in pursuance of the said order placed on record certain documents including the revenue record. Upon perusal of Annex.R-5 and documents filed alongwith the additional affidavit of Sardar Mohammed I am of the opinion that in the revenue record earlier the name of Kale Khan, father of Sher Khan was entered in the Samvat Years 2010, 2011, 2012; thereafter, mutation was effected in favour of Sher Khan S/o Kale Khan which is evident from the jamabandi produced alongwith the additional affidavit for the years 2011, 2012 and 2013 (samwat). Therefore, obviously the name of Sher Khan was entered after mutation as khatedar in the revenue record in the year (Samwat) 2011-2012 when the original petitioner Smt. Bismillah purchased the land in question. 25. it is very strange that this Court passed an order to decide the question whether the petitioner is khatedar tenant of the land in question or not but the District Collector, Jodhpur exceeded its jurisdiction while passing the compliance order dated 30.3.1995 (Annex.R-1) whereby after examining the entire record although he found that name of Sher Khan and name of original petitioner Smt. Bismillah were entered in the revenue record; but issued direction to the Tehsildar, Jodhpur to file reference under Section 82 of the Land Revenue Act for correction of the entry. 26. 26. In my opinion, the District Jodhpur, Jodhpur has invited the reference before him while directing the Tehsildar, Jodhpur but it was not intention of the order passed by this Court in the earlier writ petition dated 8.12.1993. The only question was to examine the khatedari right of Smt. Bismillah. In the opinion of this Court, the reference was made by the Tehsildar, Jodhpur at the instance of the District Collector to the District Collector under Section 82 of the Act which is not permissible in law. The above opinion of the Court draws strength from the judgment of this Court rendered in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Ram Swaroop Das reported in 1975 RLW 127 , in which, the Co-ordinate Bench has held in para 17 of the judgment that if the reference is made at the instance of the department, then, it is incompetent. Para 17 of the said judgment reads as follows: "17. My conclusion, therefore, is that the Devasthan Department of the Government of Rajasthan, which is a limb of the State Government, cannot fall within the definition of the expression 'person interested' as used in the Act. The natural corollary of this finding is that the reference made by the Acquisition Officer at the instance of the Department was incompetent and consequently the order dated 23.5.1960 passed thereon by the learned District Judge, Kota was without jurisdiction." 27. In view of the above judgment, the action of the District Collector, Jodhpur in making the reference is not sustainable in law. 28. It is also required to be observed that the District Collector has exceeded ' its jurisdiction for the reason that in the acquisition proceedings initiated under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act notice was issued to the original petitioner late Smt. Bismillah which is evident from the notification Annex.5 annexed to the writ petition. The District Collector ignored this aspect of the matter and illegally issued direction to the Tehsildar for making reference for correction in the entry of the revenue record. Therefore, the action of the District Collector for issuing directions to the Tehsildar was not justified. 29. Upon the admitted position mentioned above, it is abundantly clear that no fraud has been committed by Smt. Bismillah; more so, she is bona fide purchaser of the land in question. Therefore, the action of the District Collector for issuing directions to the Tehsildar was not justified. 29. Upon the admitted position mentioned above, it is abundantly clear that no fraud has been committed by Smt. Bismillah; more so, she is bona fide purchaser of the land in question. It is also not in dispute that on the date she purchased the land in question the name of the seller was very much in the revenue record. Therefore, being bona fide purchaser of the land in question under the registered sale-deed dated 29.7.1966 late Smt. Bismillah acquired all the rights vested in the said land. But, this aspect of the matter is completely ignored by the District Collector while making compliance of the order passed by this Court for deciding the question of khatedari rights. Therefore, the whole proceedings initiated under Section 82 of the Act of 1956 by the Tehsildar at the behest of the District Collector is not sustainable in law. 30. I have also examined the question of limitation which is very important in this case. Admittedly, the land in question was purchased by late Smt. Bismillah on 29.7.1966 from Sher Khan whose name was entered in the revenue record for the land in question. The said sale-deed is still in existence because it cannot be quashed by the District Collector or by the Board of Revenue but it is very strange that for the mutation made in favour of Sher Khan in the year 1962 and in the name of Smt. Bismillah the reference was made in the year 2001 by the District Collector, that too, upon the reference filed by the Tehsildar, Jodhpur as per the directions issued by the District Collector himself. It is very strange that although there is no limitation prescribed for reference but, at the same time, as per verdict of this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court reference could be made within reasonable time if any fraud is committed. 31. In this case, there is no allegation with regard to fraud or misrepresentation of any fact; more so, notice of reference has been issued only to the purchaser and, in the judgment passed by the Board of Revenue, the mutation made in favour of Sher Khan has been declared illegal. Therefore, such finding given by the Board of Revenue suffers from patent illegality. 32. Therefore, such finding given by the Board of Revenue suffers from patent illegality. 32. In the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Anandi Lal v. State of Rajasthan, reported in 1996(1) RLW (Raj.) 396 , this Court held that reference should be made within reasonable length of time. Paras 21 and 23 of the said judgment read as under: "21. In view of the settled position of law, as stated above, simply because the provisions of Section 82 of the Act of 1956 and Section 232 of the Act of 1955 do not provide for the period of limitation, it does not mean that the authority on whom the power is conferred, can invoke the same at any time. This is so because each and every authority on whom the power is conferred, is expected to exercise the same in just and reasonable manner. The concept of exercise of power in a reasonable manner inheres with it the concept of exercising the same within a reasonable time. If the power is not exercised within reasonable time, the invocation of the power after inordinate delay and the exercise of the same after unreasonable length of time, would be unjust, arbitrary and unreasonable. Therefore, the action taken by exercise of such power would be illegal and void. If the requirement of exercise of power within reasonable time is not read into the provisions of Section 82 of the Act of 1956 and Section 232 of the Act of 1955, then the provision itself would become unconstitutional. It can never be presumed that the Legislature intended to confer power on any authority to exercise the same in unjust and unreasonable manner. Therefore, to uphold the constitutionality of the aforesaid provisions, the requirement of exercise of the same power within reasonable period has got to be read into the same. 23. The contention that the land was a Muafi Murti Mandir Land, therefore, the power could be exercised after any length of time, cannot be accepted. The question is not with regard to the nature of the land. The question which is required to be examined is as to whether the revisional power conferred upon the authority concerned under the provisions of Section 82 of the Act of 1956 and under the provisions of Section 232 of the Act of 1955, could be exercised after unreasonable period of time. The question which is required to be examined is as to whether the revisional power conferred upon the authority concerned under the provisions of Section 82 of the Act of 1956 and under the provisions of Section 232 of the Act of 1955, could be exercised after unreasonable period of time. As held by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decisions, the power could be exercised within reasonable time whenever the statute does not provide for the period of limitation. What would be the reasonable period, would depend upon the facts of the case and the nature of the order sought to be revised." 33. In the case of Somoti Devi v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., reported in 2005(3) WLC (Raj.) 688 , the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court held that Board of Revenue committed grave illegality in accepting the reference after unreasonable delay of 35 years. Para 5 of the said judgment is as follows: "5. Although Sections 82 and 232 of 1956 Act do 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 unjust, arbitrary and unreasonable. 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 Lai. As the petitioner, after acquiring khatedari rights continued in possession of the land for a number of years, her rights cannot 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." 34. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment of Santosh Kumar Shiv Gonda Patil & Ors. v. Balasaheb Tukaram Shevale & Ors., reported in (2009) 9 SCC 352 , held that although the revisional powers can be exercised at any time and no time has been prescribed to exercise such powers but where no time limit is prescribed for exercising the power under the statute it should be exercised within reasonable time, Paras 10 and 12 of the said judgment read as follows: "10. Recently, in the case of State of Punjab and others v. Bhatinda District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd., (2007) 11 SCC 363 while dealing with the power of revision under Section 21 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, it has been held: "17. A bare reading of Section 21 of the Act would reveal that although no period of limitation has been prescribed therefore, the same would not mean that the suo motu power can be exercised at any time. 18. It is trite that if no period of limitation has been prescribed, statutory authority must exercise its jurisdiction within a reasonable period. What, however, shall be the reasonable period would depend upon the nature of the statute, rights and liabilities thereunder and other relevant factors. 19. Revisional jurisdiction, in our opinion, should ordinarily be exercised within a period of three years having regard to the purport in terms of the said Act. In any event, the same should not exceed the period of five years. The view of the High Court, thus, cannot be said to be unreasonable. Reasonable period, keeping in view the discussions made hereinbefore, must be found out from the statutory scheme. As indicated hereinbefore, maximum period of limitation provided for in sub-section (6) of Section 11 of the Act is five years." 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 the exceptional circumstances in a given case, but surely exercise of revisional power after a lapse of 17 years 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 30.3.1976 is flawed and legally not correct." 35. In the present case, admittedly, the reference was made by the District Collector, Jodhpur in the year 2001 vide order dated 30.1.2001 upon application filed under Section 82 of the Land Revenue Act by the Tehsildar Jodhpur and, that too, at the behest of the District Collector for quashing Mutation Nos. 89 and 109 made in favour of late Smt. Bismillah. 89 and 109 made in favour of late Smt. Bismillah. Obviously the said reference is made after 35 years for quashing the mutation order dated 4.12.1966 in favour of late Smt. Bismillah who was bona fide purchaser of the land in question and her name remained in existence in the revenue record right from the date of the order of mutation dated 4.12.1966. So also, there is no allegation that any fraud or misrepresentation was made by her for the purpose of mutation of land in her favour. In view of above fact, there was no legal ground available with the District Collector, Jodhpur to make reference against Mutation Nos. 89 and 109 dated 4.12.1966 after such inordinate delay. 36. In view of the aforesaid judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court, I am of the firm opinion that the order of reference dated 30.1.2001, so also, judgment dated 27.3.2002 passed by the Board of Revenue are not sustainable in law. Therefore, the same deserve to be quashed. 37. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed. Both the orders impugned in this writ petition dated 30.1.2001 passed by the District Collector, Jodhpur, so also, dated 27.3.2002 passed by the Board of Revenue are quashed and set aside and name of original petitioner Smt. Bismillah is hereby restored as khatedar tenant of the land in question situated in Khasra Nos. 403, 409 and 419, measuring 34 bigha 19 biswa which is acquired by the State for the defence purposes. The original petitioner Smt. Bismillah died during the pendency of this writ petition and her legal heirs were taken on record, therefore, the legal heirs of late Smt. Bismillah are hereby held entitled for compensation for acquisition of the land in question which shall be paid to them within three months.There shall how be no order as to costs.Petition allowed. *******