Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2661 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan Through the Collector, Pali v. Jor Singh S/o Late Shri. Mool Singh

2017-12-01

GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS, VIRENDRA KUMAR MATHUR

body2017
JUDGMENT : GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS, J. 1. The instant special appeal has been filed by the State of Rajasthan after delay of 286 days along with application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 2. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment dated 06th of December, 2016 passed by learned Single Judge, whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and set aside the order dated 26.10.1996 passed by Board of Revenue, Ajmer, so also quashed the reference made by the respondent No. 3-Additional Collector, Pali dated 18.02.1993 being time barred. 3. Mr. O.P Boob, learned Govt. Counsel appearing on behalf of State, vehemently argued that the judgment impugned is erroneous because mutation entry itself was in violation of Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (Act of 1955) as late Sh. Badri, who was member of Scheduled Caste. The said objection was raised in the year 1983, however, the proceedings were terminated in favour of petitioner's father on the basis of limitation and the proceedings under Section 175 of the Act of 1955 were dropped in the year 1983. 4. Admittedly, the Board of Revenue, Ajmer set aside the Mutation Entry No. 31/1957 made in the name of petitioner in the reference made in the year 1993 vide judgment dated 26.10.1996 5. Learned Single Judge while following the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Karan (D) through LR's v. State of Rajasthan reported in (2014) 8 SCC 282 set aside the judgment/order dated 26.10.1996 passed by Board of Revenue on the ground of limitation. 6. In our opinion, there is no question to interfere in the order passed by the learned Single Judge because the reference was made for cancellation of Mutation Entry No. 31/1957 in the year 1993 after gross delay in view of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Karan (supra). 7. In view of above, there is no question to condone the delay of 286 days in filing this special appeal. 8. Accordingly, the instant special appeal is hereby dismissed on limitation as well as on merit.