Raghuvendra S. Rathore, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition is directed against the judgment dated 07th July, 2000 (Annexure 05) passed by the learned Board of Revenue, order dated 17th July 1995 passed by the District Collector, Jodhpur (Annexure -2) and the order dated 24th June 1996 (Annexure -3) passed by the learned Collector in review application. The brief facts of the case are that in respect of khasra No. 632, Mutation No. 519 was entered into by the authorities concerned on 21st August, 1986. It was in the year 1994 that an application for reference under Sec. 82 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act (wrongly mention Sec. 75 in the order of the learned Collector) was filed by the Tehsildar, Jodhpur. On the said reference application the non -petitioners were called upon and after hearing both the parties, learned Collector dismissed the application of reference by a detailed order. After considering material facts of the case and contentions raised by both the parties, learned Collector gave his finding and the relevant extract is reproduced hereunder: - -
(2.) Thereafter, learned Tehsildar moved an application before the learned Collector for review of the order dated 17th July 1995. The said review application came to be rejected by the learned Collector on 24th June, 1996 (Annexure -3). Thereafter petitioner State, through Tehsildar, Jodhpur challenged the order of the learned Collector before the learned Board of Revenue by filing an application under Sec. 9 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956. The learned Board of Revenue considered every and each aspect of the matter and held that Mutation No. 519 dated 21 August, 1986 was entered into in respect of the sale which took place in the year 1964. On the basis of the sale, three different mutations were entered and the other two were viz 601, 655. None of the mutations were challenged by way of appeal, in accordance to the remedy provided under law. It was also held by the learned Board of Revenue that in land acquisition proceedings, notice under Sec. 7 were issued in the year 1967 but no objections were filed and therefore; it raises question mark in respect of title of the petitioner. The acquisition proceedings were challenged in the revenue court and that was rejected. Thereafter compensation in accordance with law was paid to the khatedars. Out of the total area of land, 1909 bighas was acquired earlier and remaining 629 bighas was being cultivated by 30 persons continuously since thereafter. In the instant case no legal action was taken since the year 1964 and three had been no satisfactory explanation in respect of it.
(3.) The learned Board held that three consecutive reference proceedings were rejected by the District Collector and District Land Record Officer, the first proceedings was taken up to 17th July 1995, thereafter on 24th June 1996 and the present one, is third in number. Instant proceedings were taken up after 36 years of the sale which had taken place in the year 1964. In view of the fact that neither mutation was challenged by way of appeal nor the sale was challenged before the competent Court and earlier references were also rejected, the learned Board of Revenue held that proceedings under Sec. 9 of the Land Revenue Act are not in accordance with law and there is no valid reason for the same. It was also held that application under Sec. 9 was not filed after full exercise and detailed enquiry in respect of the record nor it was done by taking into consideration the record of the acquisition etc. Consequently, it was held that in view of the reasons mentioned in the order, the application deserves to be rejected.;