1 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6848/2006 State of Rajasthan Vs. Chairman, Rajendra Suri Jayanti Samaroh Samiti Trust, Jalore & Ors. Date of order : 11th November 2010 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr.Sandeep Bhandawat for the petitioner None present for the respondents This writ petition is directed against the order dated 12.04.2005 (Annex.2) whereby the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer (‘the Board’) proceeded to reject the reference (Case No.134/99/LR/Jalore) made by the Additional Collector, Jalore under Section 82 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 and Section 232 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (‘the Act of 1955’) by his order dated 05.02.1999 (Annex.1). The reference aforesaid was made to the Board by the Additional Collector, Jalore against the decree passed in Revenue Suit No.48/1969 whereby the land in question, comprised in khasra No.320 at village Madgaon admeasuring 9 bighas and 4 biswas, came to be recorded in the name of Bhopal Singh (respondent No.7). It was alleged that the land in question belonged to one Manshia son of Rughnath Bhambhi who was a member of Scheduled Caste; and was illegally sought to be transferred in favour of a non-Scheduled Caste person in contravention of Section 42 of the Act of 1955. It 2 appears that the proceedings for making reference were taken up by the learned Additional Collector on an application made by the heirs of Manshia who alleged that the land in question had been in their cultivatory possession but for the themselves having gone out to earn their livelihood, the non-applicants proceeded to illegally take over the same and to raise construction thereat. The applicants alleged that upon resisting such acts of trespass, the non-applicants denied their right in the land in question and after enquiry it was found that by filing the said revenue suit No.48/1969, a fraudulent decree was obtained on 24.01.1970 whereby the land in question was mutated in the name of Bhopal Singh contrary to the provisions prohibiting such transfer. It was also alleged that though the land continued in possession of Manshia yet, by a sale deed dated 13.07.1973 it was transferred in the name of the non-applicants Nos.2 to 6 and thereafter, by another document, it was further transferred in the name of non- applicant No.1 Rajendra Suri Jayanti Samaroha Samiti Trust, Bakra Road and got mutated in the name of this Trust on 30.10.1985. The learned Additional Collector observed that in the said revenue suit, the defendant Manshia did not appear despite service of summons but then, an Advocate put in appearance on his behalf and thereafter, a written statement of admission was placed on record on 15.10.1969 though such fact was not mentioned in the order-sheet. The learned 3 Additional Collector observed that the Assistant Collector proceeded to declare khatedari rights in favour of Bhopal Singh without taking any evidence and merely on the basis of such written statement of admission. According to the learned Additional Collector, it had been a case of illegal transfer of the land belonging to a Scheduled Caste person contrary to the provisions of Section 42 of the Act of 1955. The learned Member of the Board, after examining the record of the case and the law applicable, found the reference unjustified for having been made after 30 years of the impugned proceedings without any explanation towards such an inordinate delay. The learned Member also referred to the position that transfer to the juristic person could not be considered hit by Section 42 of the Act of 1955 and referred to the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Indian Oil Corporation: 2003 RBJ 531. The learned Member also found incongruity in the reference order drawn by the Additional Collector where the date of decree was mentioned at some places as ‘24.1.70’ but at other place as ‘23.12.69’. The learned Member of the Board, in the totality of circumstances, found no case for interference and rejected the reference but left it open for the Additional Collector to refer the matter again in case objection raised about limitation and the other observations were properly replied. The learned Member of the Board said,- 4 “Having considered the issues and principles discussed and decided in the cases referred above, I find that learned Addl. Collector has failed to clarify the issues recording a long delay in referring the case and he has failed to clarify in what manner the decree of the court of Asstt. Collector was obtained by fraud as alleged and in what manner the land reached to a juristic person was bonafide or malafide. It is not clear why the successors of late Manshia have not been given an opportunity to put up their case in this court. They have not been represented. The dates of decision have been quoted differently at two places in the reference made by the learned Addl. Collector. At one place, it has been mentioned as 24.1.70 and at other place, it has been mentioned as 23.12.69 and this confusion needs to be sorted out. The justification for delay of 30 years stands unjustified and there is not even a lame excuse to form basis for acceptance of the reference. There is no rebuttal before us regarding the principles laid down by the Hon’ble High Court in the case reported in RBJ 2000 page 93. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, this reference is not found justified and is, therefore, rejected. In view of the circumstances of the case, it may not be inappropriate to leave it open to the learned Addl. Collector to get the liberty of referring this case again in case the objections raised above about limitation, principles laid down by the above quoted court decisions etc. and the other observations made are properly replied and proper justifications are brought on record against all observations made above.” While challenging the order aforesaid, the petitioner contends that the impugned order proceeds contrary to the provisions of Section 42 of the Act of 1955 and any proposition of transfer of land belonging to a member of Scheduled Caste in favour of a person who is not a member of Scheduled Caste remains void. It is also submitted that there is no prescribed time limit for making reference; and rejecting the reference only on the ground of delay is not justified. Having given a thoughtful consideration to the entire matter, this Court is unable to find any reason to show interference in the order impugned. 5 The learned Additional Collector while making reference has not even taken care to state the date of impugned decree properly where at one place the date was stated as 23.12.69 and at another as 24.1.70. Leaving this aspect aside, seriously questionable it is that the reference came to be made nearly 30 years after the decree when in the meantime, other transactions took place and subsequent mutations were also effected in the records. There being an unexplained delay of about 30 years, if the Board has proceeded to reject the reference, it had the jurisdiction to do so; and has rather rightly declined to interfere. The learned Member of the Board has yet taken care to leave it open to the Additional Collector of referring the case again in case the observations made in the order were properly replied with proper justification. The considerations as adopted by the Board of Revenue cannot be said to be irrelevant or unjustified nor the impugned order suffers from any jurisdictional error so as to warrant interference by this Court in the extraordinary writ jurisdiction. The writ petition fails and is, therefore, dismissed. The respondents having not appeared, there shall be no order as to costs. MK (DINESH MAHESHWARI),J.