1 D.B.Civil Special Appeal(Writ) No.106/2007 State of Rajasthan & ors. V/s Ugma 5.8.2008 Hon'ble the Chief Justice Mr.Narayan Roy Hon'ble Mr.Justice Mohammad Rafiq Mr.S.S.Sharma, Government Counsel for the appellants. Mr.S.P.Mathur for the respondent. Heard learned counsel for the parties both in limitation application and also in appeal. Delay in filing this appeal is condoned. This appeal is directed against order dated 24th August, 2005 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in writ application no.6139/04 whereby and whereunder the order passed by the Board of Revenue dated 14.5.2003 accepting the reference under section 82 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) was set aside and liberty was given to the writ-petitioner to approach appropriate forum for payment of compensation. It appears that the land in question for which land acquisition proceeding was initiated and finalized and award was passed in 2001, was allotted vide order dated 30th April, 1965 bearing khasra no.185-186 in the name of writ petitioner. After publication of award and when possession of land was taken, the writ petitioner demanded compensation for the land in question which was denied and the matter was referred by Collector 2 under section 82 of the Act for rectification of orders passed by authorities allotting land and also mutating the same in favour of the writ petitioner. The learned Single Judge of this Court, on appreciation of facts and pleadings of the parties, held that the reference made after 35 years of the allotment of land was not sustainable in law and therefore, set aside the order passed by the Board of Revenue. Learned counsel for the appellants however submitted that the land in question was mutated in the name of writ petitioner on 28th March, 1992, therefore, there was not a delay of 35 years. Even assuming that the land in question was mutated on 28th March, 1992, reference would have been made under the provisions of the Act as referred to above within a reasonable period, but in no manner it would have been done beyond a period of nine years. This is not in dispute that the land in question has already been taken over and the question is only as regard to payment of compensation to the land holder writ-petitioner. The question of mutation is only co-related with the entitlement of compensation and not for any other purpose. The learned Single Judge of this Court, after setting aside the order of Board of Revenue as referred to above, directed the writ petitioner to approach appropriate forum for redressal of his grievance in regard to payment of compensation. The learned Single Judge thus has not directed the 3 authorities to make payment of compensation and the matter is still left open between the parties to be agitated before the appropriate forum in case any claim is put forth by the writ petitioner for payment of compensation. For the reasons aforementioned, therefore, we find no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. (Mohammad Rafiq)J. (Narayan Roy)C.J. Parmar