IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.851/08 Smt. Mangli Devi Vs. Board of Revenue & Ors. HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ 1.2.2008 Shri G.K. Garg for petitioner. REPORTABLE Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner in the present writ petition has challenged the order dated 18.10.2007 whereby the appeal preferred by the respondent nos.5 to 9 has been dismissed as not pressed and the order dated 11.7.06 passed by the Board of Revenue whereby the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner refusing to implead the petitioner as party in the 1 appeal pending before him, was upheld by the Board of Revenue. The dispute is about the land which originally belonged to Mangla son of Ghasi. It is alleged that Mangla, who is resident of village Bhatesari, had left the village and did not return back for a long time. His wife Nangi who did not have any child, adopted Nanga, who is nephew of his husband and son of Mangla, as his son and made him to do the `mrityubhoj' of Mangla and custom of `pagri' was performed and he was accepted as legal heir of Mangla, who was taken as dead. On that basis, mutation in his favour with regard to the land in dispute was attested in the year 1970. Petitioner claims to have purchased the aforesaid land from Nanga on 7.4.1971 and thereafter mutation was also entered in his name on 8.3.1973. Sometime thereafter 2 Mangla returned to the Village and he filed suit before the Assistant Collector on 7.9.1982 for declaration, ejectment and permanent injunction with regard to the land in dispute. That time Nanga and petitioner contested the suit and filed the joint written statement. In the suit, plaintiff Mangla filed application for appointment of Receiver under Section 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1951 and the Assistant Collector, Jaipur by order dated 21.4.1984 appointed Tehsildar Bassi as Receiver. Separately, Mangla filed an appeal against the mutation dated 20.9.1970 entered in favour of Nanga. The said appeal was allowed by the Additional Collector on 8.9.1986. It was thereafter the Collector vide order dated 30.3.1988 made a reference under section 82 of the Land Revenue Act to the Board of Revenue for cancellation of the mutation no.30 3 which was entered in favour of the petitioner. This reference was allowed by order dated 1.10.1988. In the meantime, Mangla expired and mutation was attested in favour of his widow Rama Devi and Ram Kanyan on 27.12.1996. Subsequently, however, the Gram Panchayat, Bhurthal cancelled the aforesaid mutation made in favour of Rama Devi and Ram Kanyan and the same was attested in favour of Nanga on 19.1.1997. This order was challenged by them before Divisional Commissioner who vide order dated 22.12.1997 remanded the mater back to the Tehsildar for conducting fresh inquiry in regard to the legal representatives of the deceased Mangla. The said order was challenged by both the parties before the Board of Revenue, which however rejected their revision petitions by common order dated 3.1.02. 4 Tehsildar Bassi recognized legal representatives of Nanga namely his wife Bhonri Devi and sons Ram Lal, Gopal, Kana, Badri as the legal representative and directed for attesting mutation in their favour. Accordingly, mutation was entered in their favour on 15.8.2004. Ram Kalyan filed appeal against that order before the Divisional Commissioner on 19.6.2007. Subsequently, it appears from the record that by two registered sale deeds dated 19.8.2004 and 4.9.2004, the legal representatives of Nanga sold certain part of the very same land to Ram Chandra and others. It was at that stage that the petitioner had moved an application before the Divisional Commissioner in pending appeal for his impleadment on 9.5.2005. That application was however dismissed by the Divisional Commissioner on 11.7.2006 and thereafter 5 his revision petition filed against that order was dismissed by Board of Revenue on 18.1.2007. The appeal preferred by Ram Kalyan was allowed by the Divisional Commissioner by order dated 19.6.2007 who held Ram Kalyan to be the lawful legal representative of deceased Mangla. The legal representatives of Nanga then filed an appeal before the Board of Revenue. However, it appears that during the pendency of this appeal, some understanding was arrived at between the parties and ultimately the legal representatives of Nanga did not press their appeal and accordingly the Board by its order dated 18.10.2007 dismissed the appeal as not pressed. Consequently, the legal representatives of Nanga and Ram Kalyan have also applied for deciding the suit originally filed by Mangla in terms 6 of the compromise. It is in this background that the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the aforesaid prayers. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner being bona fide purchaser of the land from deceased Nanga, his legal representatives could not behind her back enter into a compromise with Ram Kalyan, defeating her just claim. It was argued that the application submitted by the petitioner before the Divisional Commissioner in pending appeal for her impleadment was wrongly rejected by the Divisional Commissioner and Board of Revenue also illegally dismissed the revision petition filed thereagainst. Petitioner was very much affected by the outcome of the appeal and therefore petitioner cannot be left remedyless. It was argued that the 7 effect of the compromise has been that the parties to the appeal pending before the Board of Revenue have ended up securing a collusive order which is bound to result in a collusive decree being passed in favour of Ram Kalyan. It was therefore submitted that the order passed by the Board of Revenue deciding the appeal is liable to be set aside and the matter be remanded back to the Board for hearing it afresh on merits. Learned counsel also argued that in the absence of petitioner, her interest could not be taken care of and the subsequent events have now proved her apprehension and that is why she had applied for impleadment before the Divisional Commissioner well within time. Ram Kalyan and legal representatives of Nanga joined hands so as to get the half of the property. Legal representatives of Nanga who had earlier 8 sold the land to her legal representatives can now join hands with Ramchandra and execute another sale deed without associating the petitioner to any of the proceedings. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. It is evident from the perusal of the order passed by the Teshsildar dated 5.8.2004 that he held adoption of Nanga as valid because according to him, adoption of Ram Kalyan by Mangla was not legally correct, because it was made without the consent of his wife Rama Devi. On the contrary, the adoption of Nanga which was made in absence of Mangla by his first wife Nanga was held to be valid. The learned Divisional Commissioner reversed that order 9 considering the fact that adoption of Nanga by first wife of Mangla was not legally valid and in doing so, the learned Divisional Commissioner also noticed that in fact Nanga has filed a suit for getting himself declared as adopted son of Mangla which was rejected by the competent court of Sessions Judge by judgment dated 29.8.2002. The learned Divisional Commissioner therefore held that the Tehsildar by his order dated 5.8.2004 could not have in the scope of mutation proceedings held adoption of Nanga as valid. The mutation proceedings are summary in nature and are conducted in the scope of Rule 131 and 132 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Land Records), Rules, 1957. According to Rule 132, competent authority was required to ascertain whether the deed by which adoption was 10 made was registered or not. The attesting officer is also required to satisfy that the particulars regarding registered deed as given in the Patwari's mutation report are correct. But that is on the merits of the case. If eventually, the parties have arrived at a compromise, the petitioner cannot insist on those proceedings being continued. If at all he considers that he has a reason to proceed against the legal representatives of Nanga and further if at all he is able to establish that according to law Nanga had the right to sale the lands in dispute to the petitioner, he can have his own remedy as may be available to him under the law. I therefore do not find any merit in the writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. (Mohammad Rafiq),J. RS/- 11