Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Madhav Patidar vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:10148) on 28 February, 2024
Author: Rekha Borana
Bench: Rekha Borana
[2024:RJ-JD:10148]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODH-
PUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2936/2024
Madhav Patidar S/o Shri Vithhal Patidar, Aged About 51 Years,
Ward No. 5, Chokhli Fala, Karji, District Banswara, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Registrar, Board Of Rev-
enue, Ajmer, Rajasthan.
2. The District Collector, Banswara, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manish Patel
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Praveen Khandelwal, AAG
Mr. Piyush Bhandari
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
28/02/2024
1. The present writ petition has been preferred against Order
No.1429 dated 22.02.2024 passed by the Board of Revenue,
Ajmer whereby the petitioner, who is working as Inspector (Land
Records), has been sought to be transferred from Circle Chhinch,
Tehsil Bagidora, District Banswara to District Pratapgarh.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that firstly the
order impugned is incomplete one as no specific place of posting
has been mentioned and secondly, the transfer is within the divi-
sion and as per the Rule 173 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Land
Records) Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of
1957'), it is only the Divisional Commissioner who is competent to
transfer the Revenue Inspector within the division. He submits
that the order impugned passed by the Board of Revenue is not in
[2024:RJ-JD:10148] (2 of 3) [CW-2936/2024]
conformity with Rule 173 of the Rules of 1957. In support of his
submissions, learned counsel relied upon the judgment passed by
a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Rajendra
Manda Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.1367/2023 (decided on 01.08.2023).
3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted
that vide the order impugned, the Board of Revenue has exercised
its independent power and in terms of Rule 173 of the Rules of
1957, the Board of Revenue has the authority to transfer the Rev-
enue Officer anywhere within the State. He submitted that the ra-
tio of Rajendra Manda's case (supra) would not apply to the
present matter as therein the issue was whether the State Gov-
ernment can direct the Collector/Divisional Commissioner/Board of
Revenue to transfer.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the ma-
terial available on record.
5. It is clear on record that vide the order impugned, the peti-
tioner has been sought to be transferred at Pratapgarh without
specifying any specific place of posting. The same is clearly a
vague and incomplete order as held by the co-ordinate Bench of
this Court in Rajendra Manda's case (supra) and hence, the
same cannot be upheld. Further, as observed in Rajendra
Manda's case (supra), the order of transfer of Revenue Inspector,
passed by the Board of Revenue, is clearly in exercise of the
powers as prescribed under Rule 173 of the Rules of 1957 and the
said powers have to be exercised in exclusion of one another. In
Rajendra Manda's case (supra), it has been clearly held that in-
terpreting the provision in the manner that the Board of Revenue
[2024:RJ-JD:10148] (3 of 3) [CW-2936/2024]
has the power to transfer anywhere within the State including the
power to transfer within the district and the division, would lead to
overlapping powers between the authorities mentioned therein.
Therefore, such nature of uncertainty and confusion cannot be
countenanced.
6. In view of the ratio as laid down in the above judgment, the
order impugned transferring the petitioner within the division
having been passed by the Board of Revenue, cannot be upheld
and the same is hence, quashed and set aside qua the present pe-
titioner. The writ petition is hence, allowed.
7. Stay petition and the pending applications, if any, also stand
disposed of.
(REKHA BORANA),J
271-Sphophaliya/chhavi/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
