Lrs Of Karni Singh vs Board Of Revenue, Raj. Ajmer ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 9861 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:39557] (1 of 4) [CW-15947/2023]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15947/2023

1. Surja Ram S/o Late Shri Gumana Ram, Aged About 67 Years, By Caste Bishnoi R/o Prithvi Raj Ka Bera, Village Ranasar, Tehsil Kolayat Distt. Bikaner

2. Brij Lal S/o Late Shri Gumana Ram, Aged About 63 Years, By Caste Bishnoi R/o Prithvi Raj Ka Bera, Village Ranasar, Tehsil Kolayat Distt. Bikaner

3. Imi Lal S/o Late Shri Gumana Ram, Aged About 61 Years, By Caste Bishnoi R/o Prithvi Raj Ka Bera, Village Ranasar, Tehsil Kolayat Distt. Bikaner

4. Hari Ram S/o Late Shri Gumana Ram, Aged About 52 Years, By Caste Bishnoi R/o Prithvi Raj Ka Bera, Village Ranasar, Tehsil Kolayat Distt. Bikaner

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Colonization Commissioner, Bikaner.

2. The Board Of Revenue For Rajasthan, Ajmer, Through Its Member.

----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13897/2019

1. Doongar Ram, Aged About 70 Years, Jodhpur.

2. Rewant Ram, Aged About 65 Years, Jodhpur.

3. Sona Ram @ Sohan Lal, Aged About 60 Years, All Sons Of Ramu Ram

4. Phooli W/o Late Jeewan Ram, Aged About 75 Years, Jodhpur.

5. Ummaida Ram, Aged About 50 Years, Jodhpur.

6. Nakhata Ram, Aged About 53 Years, Jodhpur.

7. Bhagwana Ram, Aged About 50 Years, Jodhpur.

8. Jugta Ram, Aged About 48 Years, Jodhpur.

9. Shaitana Ram, Aged About 45 Years, All Sons Of Jeewan Ram

[2023:RJ-JD:39557] (2 of 4) [CW-15947/2023]

10. Mooli Spouse/o Late Bhinya Ram, Aged About 68 Years, Jodhpur.

11. Uttama Ram, Aged About 50 Years, Jodhpur.

12. Bagga Ram, Aged About 38 Years, Both Sons Of Bhinya Ram

13. Teja Ram, Aged About 63 Years, Jodhpur.

14. Karna Ram, Aged About 55 Years, Both Sons Of Jaisa Ram

15. Gumana Ram S/o Dhonkal Ram, Aged About 78 Years, All By Caste Jangid Brahman, Resident Of Sutharon Ki Dhani, Village And Post Sanwra, Tehsil Bap, Phalodi, District Jodhpur.

----Petitioners Versus

1. Board Of Revenue Raj., Ajmer.

2. Collector Cum Deputy Commissioner Colonisation, Bikaner.

3. Assistant Commissioner Colonisation, Kolayat, District Bikaner.

4. State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar Colonisation, Kolayat No.4, District Bikaner.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3003/2021 Lrs Of Karni Singh, S/o Shri Girdhari Singh Rajput-

1. Vishal Singh S/o Late Shri Karni Singh, Aged About 33 Years, B/c Rajput , R/o Village Bhaluri , Tehsil Kolayat , Distt. Bikaner.

----Petitioners Versus

1. Board Of Revenue, Raj. Ajmer, Through Its Registrar.

2. Collector Cum Deputy Commissioner Colonisation, Bikaner

3. Assistant Commissioner Colonisation, Kolayat, Distt.

Bikaner

4. State Of Rajastahn, Through Tehsildar (Colonisation), Kolayat No 1, Distt. Bikaner.

[2023:RJ-JD:39557] (3 of 4) [CW-15947/2023]

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahendra Kumar Dudy For Respondent(s) : Mr. I.S. Pareek

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Order

20/11/2023

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Learned counsel for the parties are in agreement that the

controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered by a

judgment of this Court rendered in S.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.4374/1998 "Harlal Vs. Board of Revenue & Ors." decided

on 13.09.2023 in the following terms:

"1. The matter pertains to the year 1998, and thus, listed under the category of "Oldest Cases for Early Disposal".

2. The petition is directed against the order dated 22.04.1998 (Annexure-14) passed by the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer whereby reference made by the Deputy Commissioner (Colonisation), Bikaner in purported exercise of power conferred under Section 232 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (Act of 1955) vide dated 16.05.1994, for setting the order dated 08.04.1992 (Annexure-9) passed by the Assistant Commissioner (Colonisation) recording the names of petitioner as "Gair-Khatedar (s)" in the revenue record, has been answered in favour of the State.

3. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard at this stage.

4. Learned counsel appearing for both the parties contended that the controversy involved in the instant petition stands covered by the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in Ramzan Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan : D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.789/2003, wherein after due consideration of all the relevant aspects this court held that Deputy Commissioner (Colonisation) is not

[2023:RJ-JD:39557] (4 of 4) [CW-15947/2023]

competent to take reference in exercise of powers conferred under section 232 of the Act of 1955.

5. The issue raised in the petition being squarely covered by decision in Ramzan Khan's case (supra) is not disputed by the counsel appearing for the respondent State.

6. Accordingly, in the light of the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in Ramzan Khan's case (supra), the writ petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 22.04.1998 (Annexure-14) passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer in reference Case No.T.A./99/1994/Bikaner, is set aside. However, it is made clear that the competent authority shall not be precluded from making reference afresh in accordance with law."

In view of the judgment rendered in the case of Harlal

(supra), the present writ petitions are allowed. The impugned

orders dated 04.08.2023, 25.01.2019 & 13.10.2011 passed by the

Board of Revenue, Ajmer in Reference Case Nos.3697/2015,

2039/2002, 3390/2006, are set aside. However, it is made clear

that the competent authority shall not be precluded from making

reference afresh in accordance with law.

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J 13-15-Chhavi/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)