I N THE HI GH COURT OF JUDI CATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAI PUR ORDER IN S.B. Civ il W r it Pet it ion No.2 1 2 2 / 2 0 0 3 State of Rajasthan through the Collector, Jhunjhunu Ver su s Sitaram Bhandar, Pilani, Tehsil Chirawa, Jhunjhunu & Another Dat e of Or der ::: 1 1 .0 4 .2 0 0 8 Present Hon 'ble Mr . Ju st ice Nar en dr a Ku m ar Jain Shri M.C. Gupta, Addl. Govt. Counsel for petitioner Shri Radhey Shyam Purohit and Shri Ajay Gupta and Shri Shiv Charan Gupta, Counsel for respondents # # # # By t h e Cou r t : - Heard learned counsel for the parties. The District Collector, Jhunjhunu, vide its order dated 13th April, 1998, made a reference under Section 82 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, to the Revenue Board for setting-aside the Mutation No.73 dated 21st September, 1959, Mutation No.613 dated 1st August, 1968, Village Pilani and Mutation No.59 dated 23rd September, 1959 village Kherla. The Revenue Board, vide its order dated 1st May, 2002 has rejected the reference. The said order of the Revenue Board is under challenge in this writ petition preferred by the State Government. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in 'Zamabandi' for Samvat 2012 to 2015 the land was shown as Government land, therefore, the mutations entered in the name of the respondent were liable to be set-aside and the Revenue Board committed an illegality in rejecting the reference filed by the Collector, Jhunjhunu. The learned counsel for the respondents have supported the impugned judgment passed by the Revenue Board. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and examined the impugned judgment dated 1st May, 2002, passed by the Revenue Board. The Revenue Board has passed a detailed and speaking order while rejecting the reference filed by the State. It has been observed by the Revenue Board that this reference has been made after expiry of 40 years. It has further been observed that earlier a reference was registered by the Collector, Jhunjhunu, and, after detailed enquiry, the 'pattas', issued in respect of those lands, were found to be correct, therefore, the reference was not made. Apart from above, the Revenue Board has also considered that the Sub Divisional Officer initiated ceiling proceedings in respect of disputed land against opposite-party and the land was exempted from ceiling also and proceedings were dropped way back on 22nd May, 1975. The learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to point out any mala-fide action on the part of the respondents at the time of opening of mutation in their name. A Division Bench of this Court in Anandi Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others – 1996 DNJ (Raj.) 100, has considered the similar controversy about belated reference filed by the State and held that even if no period of limitation is prescribed by statute for reference, the same cannot be allowed to be referred at a belated stage. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Revenue Board. The reasons assigned by the Revenue Board for rejecting the reference are justified in law. There is no merit in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. ( Nar en dr a Ku m ar Jain ) J. / / Jaiman/ / I N THE HI GH COURT OF JUDI CATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAI PUR ORDER IN S.B. Civ il Misc. St ay Applicat ion No.15 48 / 2 0 03 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2122/ 2003 State of Rajasthan through the Collector, Jhunjhunu Ver sus Sitaram Bhandar, Pilani, Tehsil Chirawa, Jhunjhunu & Another Dat e of Or der ::: 1 1 .0 4 .2 0 0 8 Present Hon 'ble Mr . Ju st ice Nar endr a Ku m ar Jain Shri M.C. Gupta, Addl. Govt. Counsel for petitioner Shri Radhey Shyam Purohit and Shri Ajay Gupta and Shri Shiv Charan Gupta, Counsel for respondents # # # # By t h e Cou r t : - Consequent upon dismissal of the writ petition itself, the stay application, filed therewith, does not survive and the same is also dismissed. ( Nar en dr a Ku m ar Jain) J. / / Jaiman/ /