Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Smt. Dayarani vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 4 March, 2024
Author: Rekha Borana
Bench: Rekha Borana
[2024:RJ-JD:10646]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3393/2024
Smt. Dayarani W/o Vinod Kumar, Aged About 56 Years, 3/30,
R.h.b Colony Hanumangarh Junction, District Hanumangarh
(Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Trough Tie Principal Secretary,
Department Of Revenue, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Registrar, Board Of Revenue Rajasthan, Ajmer
3. The District Collector, Hanumangarh.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sameer Pareek
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Piyush Bhandari for
Mr. Praveen Khandelwal, AAG
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
04/03/2024
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 Senior Inspector
(Land Records), has been sought to be transferred from Dabli
Rathan District Hanumangarh to District Bikaner.
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
division 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
[2024:RJ-JD:10646] (2 of 3) [CW-3393/2024]
that the order impugned passed by the Board of Revenue is not in
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
Revenue Officer anywhere within the State. He submitted that the
ratio of Rajendra Manda's case (supra) would not apply to the
present matter as therein the issue was whether the State
Government can direct the Collector/Divisional
Commissioner/Board of Revenue to transfer.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
5. It is clear on record that vide the order impugned, the
petitioner has been sought to be transferred to District Bikaner
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
[2024:RJ-JD:10646] (3 of 3) [CW-3393/2024]
interpreting the provision in the manner that the Board of
Revenue 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
petitioner. The writ petition is hence, allowed.
7. Stay petition and the pending applications, if any, also stand
disposed of.
(REKHA BORANA),J
377-Vij/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
