1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.2447/2005 Prabhati Vs. Board of Revenue & Ors. Date of Order :- 03.07.2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.CHAUHAN Mr.Sharad Purohit, for the petitioner. None present for the respondents. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 19.01.2005 passed by the Board of Revenue ('the Board', for short) whereby the Board had dismissed the reference ostensibly on the ground that the dispute relates to private parties and the interest of the State is not involved. It is the case of the petitioner that one Mool Chand was the Khatedar of ¼ part of Khata No.16, 1/6 part of Khata No.21, 1/3 part of Khata No.24, and 1/3 part of Khata No.11 in Village Manpura, Tehsil Alwar. Since Mool Chand did not have any children of his own, he adopted his nephew Sarupa and left a will in his name. After the death of Mool Chand, in accordance with his will, Sarupa inherited his landed property. Sarupa continued to cultivate this land during his life 2 time. During his life time, Sarupa initially married Rambai. From whom, he had a daughter, namely Prabhati, the petitioner before this Court. After the death of Rambai, Mst. Phooli married Sarupa, although she was already married to another person. Subsequently, Mst. Phooli gave birth to a daughter, Kabooli. In 1983 Sarupa expired and the Gram Panchayat opened the mutation in favour of Chandar, who claims to be the adopted son of Sarupa, and in the name of Mst. Phooli, Prabhati and Kabooli. Since the petitioner was aggrieved by this mutation, she filed an application that a reference to be made to the Board. Vide order dated 22.06.2001, the Additional Collector (First) Alwar made reference to the Board. However, vide order dated 19.01.2005, the Board rejected the reference as mentioned above. Hence, this petition before this Court. Mr. Sharad Purohit, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the reasoning given by the Board for rejecting the reference is that no interest of the State was involved and the dispute was between the private parties. However, such a reason is legally unsustainable. For, Section 82 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act ('the Act', for short) does 3 not require that the reference can be made only when the interest of the state is involved. In fact, the scope and ambit of Section 82 of the Act would include “the regularity of a proceeding”. In case, the mutation had been opened illegally or irregularly, then a reference can be made by the Collector to the Board of Revenue. In order to substantiate his contention, he has relied upon the case of Ms. T. Banerjee & Ors. Vs. Board of Revenue & Ors. {RLW 1998 (3) 1990}. Despite the fact that notices were issued and served upon respondent Nos.2, 3 & 4, namely Mst. Phooli, Kabooli & Chandar, no one has appeared on their behalf. Therefore, vide order dated 30.03.2009, this Court had directed that notices again be sent to respondent Nos.2, 3 & 4 informing them that no one has appeared on their behalf before the Court. The said notice has also been received by them according to the office report dated 16.05.2009. Despite the service of notice, even today no one has appeared on their behalf. Hence this Court has no other option, but to proceed ex-parte against them. Section 82 of the Act is as under :- 82. Power to call for records and proceedings and reference to State Government or Board – The Settlement 4 Commissioner or the Director of Land Records (or a Collector) may call for and examine the record of any case decided or proceedings held by any revenue court or officer subordinate to him for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of the order passed and as to the regularity of proceedings; and, if he is of opinion that the proceedings taken or order passed by such subordinate court of officer should be varied cancelled or reversed, he shall refer the case with his opinion thereon for the orders of the Board, if the case is of a judicial nature or connected with settlement, or for the orders of the State Government if the case is of a non-judicial nature not connected with Settlement; and the Board or the State Government, as the case may be, shall thereupon pass such order as it thinks fit.” A bare perusal of Section 82 of the Act clearly reveals that reference to the Board is not limited only to those cases where the interest of the State is involved. Therefore, a reference can be made even in cases where the dispute is amongst private parties. A similar view has also been taken by this Court in the case of Ms. T. Banerjee & Ors. (supra). In this view of the matter, this Court has no hesitation in quashing and setting aside the order dated 19.01.2005 and in remanding the case back to the 5 Board of Revenue. Therefore, the order dated 19.01.2005 is, hereby, quashed and set aside and the case is remanded back to the Board for reconsideration. The Board of Revenue is expected to decide the case on merit within a period of three months from the receipt of certified copy of this judgment. With these observations, this writ petition is, hereby, allowed. (R.S.CHAUHAN)J. Manoj Solanki