1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1355/2009 Urban Improvement Trust, Ajmer Versus Board of Revenue & Ors. Date of Order :: 11th February, 2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI Mr.L.L. Boss for petitioner. Mr.N.K. Josh ] Mr.L.N. Boss ] for respondents. ***** By way of this writ petition, a challenge has been made to the order dated 8.10.2008 passed by the Board of Revenue. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner - Urban Improvement Trust, Ajmer that pursuant to the provisions of Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 (for short 'the Act of 1973'), respondents-land holders were found possessing land in excess to the ceiling limit. In view of the decision under the Act of 1973, excess land being 28.85 acres was sought to be acquired by Sub Divisional Officer. Mutation Entry was opened by the Patwari of Halka and was initially accepted by the Assistant Land Settlement Officer, Ajmer. Against the said order, respondent – Onkar Nath Bhargava filed first appeal before the Land Settlement Officer after 2 lapse of 13 years. The aforesaid appeal was allowed by quashing the mutation entry dated 31.8.1987. The UIT preferred an appeal before the Land Settlement Commissioner, who then set aside the order of the Land Settlement Officer and confirmed the mutation entry. Legal heirs of Onkar Nath Bhargava then filed a revision petition before the Board of Revenue, which was then allowed. It is stated that petitioner's case was considered under the Act of 1973 by serving a notice under Section 11 of the Act of 1973. The matter was therein concluded with a finding that petitioner is holding land in excess to the ceiling limit. Thus, the aforesaid land became a government land in view of the acquisition and accordingly mutation entry was open. The respondents-land holders failed to prefer an appeal in time before the Land Settlement Officer and in fact, appeal was filed after a period of 13 years by the respondents. The Land Settlement Officer wrongly accepted the appeal beyond the period of limitation. The Land Settlement Commissioner accordingly considered the matter and came to the conclusion that UIT, Ajmer deposited the amount of compensation on 25.4.1989 with the State and accordingly possession of the land was taken. While the appeal was preferred by the respondents before the Land Settlement Officer, UIT was not impleaded as party. Thus, appeal was wrongly entertained. The Land Settlement Commissioner rightly decided the 3 matter, which is wrongly being interfered by the Board of Revenue. This is more so when the land so acquired by the petitioner was used for developing a residential scheme in the name of Jawala Prasad Nagar Scheme. Learned counsel for respondents, on the other hand, supports the judgment of the Board of Revenue. I have considered the submissions of the parties and scanned the matter carefully. Perusal of the order passed by the Board of Revenue shows that taking note of the fact that proceedings under the Act of 1973 as was decided against the respondent – Onkar Nath Bhargava was a subject matter of writ petition wherein interim order was passed on 25.3.1998, thus whole process undertaken by the respondents was held to be illegal in view of interim order. Civil Writ Petition No. 1021/1998 – Onkar Nath Bhargava Vs. Board of Revenue & Ors. has been decided by this Court today after hearing the aforesaid writ petition along with this writ petition. In Writ Petition bearing No. 1021/1998, it is held that petitioner therein was having land in excess to the ceiling limit, same would to be surrendered by legal heirs of Onkar Nath Bhargava as was prayed by them. 4 In view of the aforesaid, the judgment of the Board of Revenue cannot be allowed to stand, thus set aside. However, as agreed by the parties, a direction is required to be issued that mutation in favour of the UIT would only to the extent of 22.85 acres and accordingly mutation entry opened for a land over and above is to be rectified. With the aforesaid direction as otherwise agreed by the parties, this writ petition is disposed of. (M.N. BHANDARI), J. Sunil,JrPA