Mohammad Rafiq, J. - (1.) Respondents No.5 and 6 in plan submitted by them for conversion of their land under Section 90(B) of Rajasthan Land Revenue Act (for short, 'the Act'), wrongly included land of petitioner's khatedari in Khasra No.421/2 as part of their land in Khasra No.421/1. While deciding their application under Section 90B of the Act, respondent no.4 Sub Divisional Officer, Kishangarh called for report of Patwari and Tehsildar concerned. Petitioner filed objection to such application under Section 90B of the Act. While deciding said application, respondent no.4 S.D.O. found objections sustainable and directed that so long as application of petitioner for correction of revenue maps was not decided by competent authority, further proceedings under Section 90B of the Act cannot be finalized. Divisional Commissioner, however, held that while passing final order, competent authority can make necessary amendments in map and with that direction, set aside order passed by respondent no.4 S.D.O., dated 17.05.2002 and directed him to finalize application under Section 90B. Board of Revenue has concurred with view taken by Divisional Commissioner.
(2.) Learned counsel for petitioner has argued that order which was passed by respondent no.4 S.D.O., was in favour of petitioner and therefore learned Divisional Commissioner could not have, without impleadment of petitioner as party in proceedings before him and without providing opportunity of hearing to petitioner, set aside that order. Board of Revenue has also failed to appreciate this argument.
(3.) Upon hearing learned counsel for petitioner, I find that although it may be true that petitioner was not heard before passing order but Divisional Commissioner has safeguarded his interest by observing that no conversion of land measuring 15 biswa comprising of Khasra no.421/2, under Section 90B can be allowed because that land is in khatedari of petitioner and therefore directed that before passing any final order, necessary corrections in revenue map shall be made. On this, apprehension expressed by learned counsel for petitioner is that respondents have already illegally issued 'pattas' on their land of khasra no.421/1 and now they intend to grab petitioner's land in khasra no.421/2. This apprehension of petitioner, in my view, is illusory and without any foundation because Divisional Commissioner and Board of Revenue have consistently maintained that no conversion in land of Khasra No.421/2 shall be allowed, which is entered in petitioner's khatedari.;