CW 3982/2000 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3982/2000 Smt. Kali & Ors. Versus State & Anr. DATE OF ORDER : 28/04/2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr. S.C. Gupta, for petitioner Mr. Pradeep Kalwania, Addl. Govt. Counsel, for respondents *** Heard the learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition has been filed by petitioner challenging the order dt.1st July, 2000 passed by Board of Revenue by which reference made by the District Collector vide order dt.26th June, 1997 has been accepted and the order dt.7th September, 1965 by which khatedari rights were conferred upon the petitioner, was set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner has also additionally challenged the order dt.1st CW 3982/2000 [2] July, 2000 by which his review petition was also dismissed by the Board of Revenue. Learned counsel submitted that khatedari rights were conferred upon the petitioner by Tehsildar, Boli in terms of Rajasthan Land Revenue [Allotment of Land for Agricultural Purposes], Rules, 1957. As per R.13 of the Rules, even the Tehsildar was competent to confer such khatedari rights. The petitioner was in possession with the disputed land for long period and on that basis khatedari rights were conferred. Reliance was placed on the Government Circular No.F3(66) dt.1st September, 1963 and F/66B/62 dt.21st February, 1964 to show that Government had authorized the Tehsildar for this purpose. Learned counsel submitted that Board of Revenue has accepted the reference by a non-speaking order in which none of the arguments raised by the petitioner have been considered and no reference was made to relevant rules and cited circulars and thereafter, when even CW 3982/2000 [3] the petitioner filed review petition that was also dismissed. Learned counsel submitted that reference in the present case was made after delay of 32 yrs. and was incompetent in view of judgments passed by this court in Anandi Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan [1996 (2) WLC-36] and so also in Kali Charan & Anr. Vs. Board of Revenue [2005 (7) RDD- 2358]. None of these arguments, however, have been considered by the Board of Revenue. The recommendation of Beri Commission, of which reference has been made by the respondents, was general in nature but on that basis the rules cannot be ignored. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that petitioner who was trespasser and proceeding u/s.91 was pending against him. CW 3982/2000 [4] It was shivaya-chak land, for that reason also the petitioner could not be granted khatedari rights. Tehsildar had no authority to grant such khatedari rights. In view of report of Beri Commission, khatedari rights were liable to be cancelled. The Board of Revenue was justified in cancelling the khatedari rights in reference proceedings. Whatever may be the case on merits, the order by which reference has been accepted clearly shows that Board has dealt with the matter in an unsatisfactory manner. The order does not disclose either merits nor does it refer to any provision of the Act or rules with reference to which it is sought to be held that khatedari rights could not be conferred. The petitioner placed reliance on two specific circulars issued by the government and Rule 13 of the Rules, 1957, but the Board has not discussed such arguments and also the fact CW 3982/2000 [5] that what would be the effect of delay of 32 yrs. has also been completely lost sight. When the review petition was filed, at that stage also, the Board of Revenue did not examine as to if the premise on which reference has been made that Tehsildar did not have competence to grant khatedari rights or what is the effect of the above referred circular relied upon by the petitioner, was also required to be examined by the Board. It is not known that on the basis of which circular/instructions the Board of Revenue has accepted the khatedari rights granted to the petitioner. For all these reasons, it would be difficult for this court to appreciate what weighed with the Board in accepting the reference. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that matter requires re- consideration on all these aspects. The impugned orders dt.12.3.99 & 1.7.2000 are CW 3982/2000 [6] hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Board of Revenue to decide afresh on merits keeping in view discussion made above. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. [MOHAMMAD RAFIQ], J. FRBOHRA3982CW2000 28-4.doc