Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2156 (RAJ)

LR’s of Khayali v. State of Rajasthan

2013-12-03

GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - In this writ petition, the petitioners have made following prayer: "(i) The initiation of the proceedings of reference by the Tehsildar to the Collector (Ex.l) be quashed and as a consequential of it the Orders passed by the subsequent authorities like Settlement Commissioner, Jaipur dated 6.12.1988 (Ex.2) (ii) That the order passed by the member Board of Revenue order dated 28.5.1993 (Ex.3) referring the matter may kindly be quashed and set aside. (iii) That the order passed by the member Board of Revenue dated 22.5.2000 (Ex.4) of reference may kindly be quashed and set aside. (iv) That the order passed in Review petition (Ex.6) dated 4.3.2010 may kindly be set aside and quashed with all consequential relief. (v) Any other appropriate order or direction which is deemed just, proper and fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be also passed in favour of the petitioner." 2. As per facts of the case, Tehsildar (Land Records), Taranagar (District Churu) filed an application for quashing the entry regarding land in Khasra Nos. M, 1155, 1165, 889, 1193, 1293, 1344/1152, total area 355 bigha 5 biswa [Situated at village Sahava, Tehsil Taranagar (District Churu). The District Collector, Churu accepted the said applicant and made reference for correction in the revenue record of the entry relating to the above khasra for the land measuring 355 bigha 5 biswa which was earlier entered in the name of Mandir Srinarsinghji and was khatedari land of the said temple. The Board of Revenue ride judgment dated 22.5.2000 accepted the reference on the ground that in the revenue record the land in question was entered in the name of murti (idol) Srinarsinghji since the land was khatedari land of the temple and name of the petitioners was wrongly entered in the revenue record. The Board of Revenue while giving the finding that the land in question was khatedari land of the temple and, in the revenue record, the name of the petitioner was wrongly entered in the revenue records, therefore, the entries made in favour of the petitioners was quashed and name of temple was restored in the revenue records for the land measuring 355 bigha 5 biswa. 3. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that order dated 22.5.2000 was passed in absence of Counsel for the petitioners, therefore, a review petition under Section 86 of the Land Revenue Act was filed but the Board of Revenue I dismissed the review petition also while reiterating the judgment dated 22.5.2000 passed in the Reference Case No. 332/1993. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the order impugned has been passed without providing opportunity of hearing, therefore, the review was to be accepted by the Board of Revenue, so also, the grounds taken by the petitioners in the review petition were to be accepted, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be quashed. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners further argued that the reference was made after about 30 years of the entry as khatedar, therefore, after inordinate delay no such reference was to be accepted, therefore, the order impugned may be quashed. 6. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, I have perused the order impugned. 7. In the opinion of this Court, the petitioners are not disuting the fact that earlier the land was entered in the name of temple Murti Srinarsinghji and, in the revenue records, it is found that erroneously the name of the petitioners is entered in the revenue record. The status of the petitioners was only that of Pujari of the temple and they cannot be treated as khatedar of the land in question. Therefore, obviously it is a case of rectification of mistake committed by the revenue authorities for entering the name of the petitioners in the revenue record, therefore, on facts, no interference is required in this case. 8. For the ground that petitioners were not heard even though they engaged lawyer suffice it to say that to substantiate this argument there is no affidavit of the lawyer nor the review petition was filed by the same lawyer, therefore, it cannot be presumed that the petitioners were not heard by the Board of Revenue. Therefore, there is no substance in the argument of learned Counsel for the petitioners that the order has been passed without providing opportunity. 9. I have also considered the argument of delay in making the reference. Therefore, there is no substance in the argument of learned Counsel for the petitioners that the order has been passed without providing opportunity. 9. I have also considered the argument of delay in making the reference. In this connection, 1 am of the opinion that the petitioners themselves are not disputing the fact that the petitioners are Pujaris and originally the land was entered in the name of the temple; meaning thereby, it is a case of correction of entry in the revenue record for which power can be exercised even after delay. Therefore, there is no strength in the argument advanced by learned Counsel for the petitioners on the ground of delay and same is hereby rejected.Consequently, this writ petition is hereby dismissed as having no force.Petition dismissed. *******