Bhagirath vs The Board Of Revenue ...

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Bhagirath vs The Board Of Revenue ... on 30 May, 2024

Author: Rekha Borana

Bench: Rekha Borana

[2024:RJ-JD:25000]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                   S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8967/2024

Bhagirath S/o Mangilal, Aged About 46 Years, R/o - Ward No. 2,
6 A.d., Pugal, Bikaner.
                                                                      ----Petitioner
                                      Versus
1.        The Board Of Revenue, Ajmer, Through Its Registrar,
          Ajmer.
2.        The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Revenue
          Department, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3.        The District Collector, District Chittorgarh, Rajasthan.
4.        Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil - Kapasan, Chittorgarh.
5.        Suman Kumar Meena, Shown At Serial No. 10 Of The
          Order Dated 22/2/24 Through The District Collector
          Chittorgarh.
                                                                   ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)           :     Mr. Ritu Raj Singh Rathore
For Respondent(s)           :     Mr. Monal Chugh for
                                  Mr. Rajesh Panwar, AAG



              HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

Order 30/05/2024

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that vide impugned order dated 22.02.2024, the petitioner, who is working as a Patwari, has been sought to be transferred from Panchayat Halka - Mungana, Tehsil - Kapasan, District Chhitorgarh to District Rajsamand, without specifying the exact place of posting/Patwar Mandal. Learned counsel submits that the same is even otherwise, in contravention to Rule 9 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Land Records) Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1957').

(Downloaded on 03/06/2024 at 08:41:00 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:25000] (2 of 3) [CW-8967/2024] In support of his submissions, learned counsel relied upon the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Rajpal Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.544/2021 (decided on 18.03.2021).

2. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the Collector is very well empowered to pass appropriate order regarding place of posting after the transfer order having been passed by the Board of Revenue. Hence, even if the order impugned does not mention the specific place of posting, it can be taken care of by the Collector.

3. Heard the counsels. Perused the order impugned.

4. A perusal of the order impugned dated 22.02.2024 makes it clear that no specific place of posting has been mentioned in the same. While dealing with a similar situation, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Rajpal Singh's case (supra), held that, even if the State or competent authority wishes to transfer a patwari from one place to another, he has to satisfy himself about the interest of efficiency of work or to fill the vacant post. The Court in the said matter, observed that a transfer made without indicating Patwar Circle or even Tehsil is enough to show lack of application of mind and hence, it cannot be inferred that the competent authority was aware of the present vacant position in the said district and that too, the requirement of petitioner's efficiency in such Patwar Circle, for which his transfer was warranted.

The Court, in the said circumstances concluded as under :

"28. If the competent authority has not decided or was not aware, where the concerned patwari is to be transferred, it cannot be presumed that the (Downloaded on 03/06/2024 at 08:41:00 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:25000] (3 of 3) [CW-8967/2024] competent authority has applied its mind towards the vacant position, falling vacant on account of exigencies mentioned in clause (ii) of Rule 9 of the Rules of 1957. Nor can he be presumed to have ascertained that interest of efficiency of work required that petitioner should be transferred to a far flung place at Hanumangarh."

5. In view of the above ratio which squarely covers the present matter, the order impugned dated 22.02.2024 qua the present petitioner deserves to be quashed and set aside and the same is hereby set aside. The writ petition is hence, allowed.

6. Stay petition and the pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

7. It is however made clear that the present order would not be termed to preclude the State Authorities from passing fresh orders, in terms of law.

(REKHA BORANA),J 289-Devanshi/Abhishek-

(Downloaded on 03/06/2024 at 08:41:00 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)