1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3917/2001 Gauri Lal @ Goverdhan & Anr. Vs. Board of Revenue & Ors. Date of order : 2/12/2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Sanjay Joshi for the petitioner. Shri S.D. Khaspuria, Addl. Govt. Counsel for the State. Ms. Kavita for the respondents. ****** This writ petition seeks to challenge the order of the Board of Revenue dated 8.8.2000 by which the the Board while accepting the review petition filed by the respondent has recalled its earlier order dated 19.5.1999 and dismissed the reference made by the District Collector. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that District Collector, Dausa made reference on application of Gauri Lal and Babu Lal, who were both sons of Mooliya and were Meena by caste, which is a Scheduled Tribe community. It is contended that the reference was made by the District Collector by his order dated 1.9.1998 and it was made to the effect that the judgement and decree passed by Assistant Collector, Bandikui on 19.11.1985 is void ab initio as it grants khatedari rights to the respondent who were Mali by caste, which is a general community, in the land of Scheduled Tribe which is barred by 2 Section 42(b) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. The reference was accepted by learned Board of Revenue vide order dated 19.5.1999. Learned counsel submits that the order accepting reference could not have been recalled and reference could not have been rejected in absence of Gauri Lal. Learned counsel submitted that the learned Board of Revenue while reviewing the order of reference and recalling the same, has in its order dated 8.8.2000 shown name of Gauri Lal as dropped whereas the lawful course was to require impleadment of his legal representative i.e. his wife Kamli Devi, who is the petitioner herein and then proceed in the review petition. Ms. Kavita, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petition and submitted that Babu Lal, another brother of Gauri Lal, was duly represented before the learned Board of Revenue. The impleadment of legal heirs of deceased Gauri Lal was not necessary. His name was therefore rightly dropped. Learned Board of Revenue has given reasons for recalling its earlier order and rejecting the reference. Mere non hearing the legal representatives of deceased Gauri Lal cannot be said to have caused any prejudice to the petitioner. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order, I find that Gauri Lal as the son of Mooliya, had independent right and it was his right 3 which would have been inherited by his widow Kamli Devi, who has approached this Court in the present writ petition. If at all the learned Board of Revenue wanted to entertain the review petition, it should have required the respondents to implead legal representatives of Gauri Lal on record, because core issue was whether or not the khatedari right can be conferred upon the respondents, who are in general class, over the land, which is said to have been originally entered in the khatedari of petitioners, who are Scheduled Tribe. It is not necessary for this Court to examine validity of the order accepting the review on other arguments because that order deserves to be set aside on the first argument that legal heirs of deceased Gauri Lal were not represented before the Board of Revenue and the review petition has been accepted after his death without notice to them and by simply dropping his name. The course adopted by the Board of Revenue cannot be said to be legally justified. In view of above discussion, this writ petition succeeds, the impugned order dated 8.8.2000 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Board of Revenue for hearing the review petition alone. Kamli Devi who is widow of petitioner Gauri Lal, is ordered to be impleaded as party respondent no.2 in the review petition. The parties are directed to appear before the Board of Revenue on 4 10.1.2010. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/-