Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ram Chandra And Ors vs B.O.R. (2024:Rj-Jd:41461) on 9 October, 2024
Author: Dinesh Mehta
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
[2024:RJ-JD:41461]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3135/1996
(1) Ram Chandra, aged about 61 years, S/o Shri Madan Lal
Singhal,
(2) Lrs. of late Smt. Kalavati Devi
2/1(a) Smt. Kusum Lata, Aged about 62 years, W/o Late
Shri Jugal Kishore,
2/1(c) Ms. Dipti, Aged about 33 years, D/o Late Shri Jugal
Kishore,
(3) Lrs. of Late Shri Rakesh Kumar
3/1. Smt. Seema Devi W/o Late Shri Rakesh Kumar, Aged about
47 years.
3/2. Deep Singhal S/o Late Shri Rakesh Kumar, Aged about 22
Years, Minor Through his natural guardian Smt. Seema Devi.
3/3. Yachika D/o Late Shri Rakesh Kumar, Aged about 19 Years,
minor through her natural guardian Smt. Seema Devi.
4. Smt. Madhu Devi, Aged about 63 Years, W/o Shri Ram
Chandra Singhal.
5. Smt. Kusum Lata, Aged about 61 Years, W/o Late Shri Jugal
Kishore.
6. Smt. Nirmala Devi, Aged about 50 years, W/o Shri Rajkumar,
All by caste Agarwal, R/o Rughji Ku Pole, Balotra, District
Barmer.
----Petitioners
Versus
(1) The Board of Revenue for Rajasthan at Ajmer, through the
Registrar.
(2) The District Collector, Barmer.
(3) The State of Rajasthan, Through the Secretary to the
Government, Revenue Department, Government of Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. MS Singhvi, Sr. Counsel assisted
by Mr. Abhishek Mehta
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Govind Lal Suthar
[2024:RJ-JD:41461] (2 of 6) [CW-3135/1996]
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
09/10/2024
1. By way of present writ petition, the petitioners have
challenged the order dated 05.11.1986, passed by the District
Collector, Barmer making reference to the Board of Revenue
(hereinafter referred to as the 'Board') so also the consequential
order dated 28.08.1995, passed by the Board, whereby reference
made by the District Collector was accepted and mutation entries
relating to land belonging to petitioners were set aside.
2. The facts appertain are that a parcel of land measuring 72
Bigas falling in Khasra No.647, village Padru, Tehsil Siwana,
District Barmer was mutated in the name of Shiva Ram and
Shriram.
3. Later on, a reference came to made by the District Collector,
Barmer on 05.11.1985, interalia with a stand that the subject land
belonged to deity (Doli Mandir Shri Thakur Ji Purohitan) and thus,
it could not have been recorded in the name of said Shiva Ram
and Shriram.
4. Though Shiva Ram was being represented by a counsel
before the Board of Revenue but during the pendency of the
reference, he passed away. On information being received, the
Board directed the Tehsildar, Siwana to ascertain the factum of
death of Shiva Ram and give details of his legal representatives so
that they may be substituted and proceedings be continued
against them.
5. The Board allowed the reference so made by the District
Collector, Barmer vide its order dated 28.08.1995 interalia holding
[2024:RJ-JD:41461] (3 of 6) [CW-3135/1996]
that the land had wrongly been mutated in the name of said Shiva
Ram and the subject land belong to the deity (Doli Mandir Shri
Thakur Ji Purohitan), which is perpetual minor.
6. During the pendency of the reference, the petitioners
purchased the subject land from one Thakur Das - son of Shiva
Ram, being ignorant of the pendency of reference.
7. The petitioners being subsequent purchasers have preferred
the present writ petition laying challenge to the above referred
order passed by the Board.
8. Mr. Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
petitioners submitted that the order dated 28.08.1995 is a nullity
in the eye of law, because the reference has been decided by the
Board against a dead person as said Shiva Ram had passed away
during the pendency of the reference proceeding and his legal
representatives have not been brought on record.
9. While maintaining that the petitioners are bonafide
purchasers having purchased the land from Thakur Das (son of
said Shiva Ram) by way of a registered sale deed dated
24.04.1995, learned Senior Counsel argued that the reference
having been initiated after twenty years of the mutation entry in
question, was illegal.
10. In support of his contention aforesaid, learned counsel for
the petitioners relied upon the judgment of full bench of this Court
rendered in the case of Tara vs State of Rajasthan, reported in
(2015) 4 RLW 1 and judgment of Apex Court rendered in the
case of Joint Collector Ranga Reddy District and Anr. vs. D.
Narsing Rao & Ors. reported in (2015) 3 SCC 695, wherein the
reference which was made after unexplained and inordinate delay
[2024:RJ-JD:41461] (4 of 6) [CW-3135/1996]
of about 42 years and 50 years respectively, was held liable to be
set aside.
11. Mr. Suthar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents
submitted that since the mutation entry in the name of Shiva Ram
was made contrary to provision of law, no interference is
warranted, regardless of the fact that reference was made after
twenty years of opening mutation in the name of Shiva Ram. He
submitted that if this Court is of the view that the impugned
orders dated 05.11.1986 and 28.08.1995 have been passed
against a dead person, the matter be remanded to the Board for a
fresh decision.
12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
13. After considering the submissions of Mr. Singhvi on previous
date of hearing, this Court had summoned the record from the
Board so as to ascertain the correct factual position about the
death of Shiva Ram and substitution of his legal representatives.
14. On perusal of the record of the Board, this Court finds that
an intimation was received by the Board on 21.09.1987 that Shiva
Ram, the owner of land in question had since passed away,
whereafter the Board had sent a precept to the Tehsildar, Siwana
asking details/particulars of the legal representatives of said Shiva
Ram.
15. In furtherance whereof, the Teshildar, Siwana vide its
communication dated 27.09.1988 sent details of legal
representatives of Shiva Ram.
[2024:RJ-JD:41461] (5 of 6) [CW-3135/1996]
16. It is surprising to note that there is no order of issuance of
notice to legal representatives of Shiva Ram nor any served copy
of the notices is available on record.
17. It is therefore clear that the notices were never served upon
Thakur Das being legal representative of Shiv Ram and petitioners'
predecessor-in-title.
18. The impugned order passed by the Board is clearly contrary
to law, as the same has been passed without substituting and
affording any opportunity of hearing to Thakur Das being legal
representative of Shiva Ram, who had passed away during the
pendency of the reference proceedings.
19. The fact that legal representatives of said Shiva Ram had not
been brought on record can be discerned from the cause title of
the order dated 28.08.1995 passed by the Board.
20. Such being the position, ideally, this Court ought to have
remanded the matter back to the Board for deciding the matter
afresh after issuing notice to legal representatives of Shiva Ram.
But this Court cannot ignore the legal position about delay in
making reference - the reference was made after twenty years of
the mutation entries in question.
21. Full Bench of this Court in the case of Tara (supra) so also
Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Joint Collector Ranga
Reddy District (supra) have held that reference made after delay
of more than three years is invalid in the eyes of law.
22. In view of the afore discussion, the writ petition is allowed.
23. The order dated 05.11.1986 (Annexure-5) passed by the
District Collector, Barmer making reference so also the
consequential order dated 28.08.1995 (Annexure-6) passed by
[2024:RJ-JD:41461] (6 of 6) [CW-3135/1996]
the Board of Revenue, Ajmer are hereby quashed and set aside.
Consequence to follow.
24. Record of the Board be returned.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
1-raksha/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
