- (1.) THE petitioners Pema, Rama and Nava, all sons of Devaji Dangi have approached this Court by way of present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dtd.12.3.2013 of the Board of Revenue dismissing the revision petition No.TA/303/2013/Udaipur ­ Pema and ors. V/s Smt. Panna Bai and anr which was filed against the order dtd.27.12.2012 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Officer, Girva in appeal No.33/2010 whereby on an application filed by one Smt. Panna Bai W/O Gega Ji Dangi, who claimed to be daughter of Heera Lal, whose land in question stood mutated in favour of the present petitioners and Smt. Panna Bai claimed that she was the only daughter of deceased Heera Lal and mutation enteries were required to be made in her favour condoning the delay of almost 35 years, the SDO instituted an enquiry as to whether Smt. Panna Bai W/o Sh. Gega Ji was real and the only daughter of the deceased Hera Lal.
(2.) MR . Deelip Kawadia, learned counsel for the petitioners urged that the remedy with the respondent Smt. Panna Bai was to file suit for declaration and possession, if she wanted to have any title in the said land and against the mutation entries in favour of the petitioners, which are only fiscal in nature, the delay of 35 years for challenging the same, could not be condoned and the Board of Revenue has erred in dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioner. He relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Jethu Singh V/s Bhanwar Singh reported in 2003(3) DNJ (Raj.) 1143 in which in para 9 of the same, relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Sawarni V/s Inder Kaur reported in (1996) 6 SCC 223, the learned Single Judge held that question of title must be settled before the competent Court and if anybody is aggrieved of any oder, he must file a suit for declaration of title and possession over the disputed land, claiming his rights and interest in the property either by succession or any other mode. The Court further held relying upon the decision of Privy Council in the case of Nirman Singh V/s Lal Rudra Pratap Narain Singh Thakur ­ AIR 1926 PC 100 that mutation of property in the revenue record does not create or extinguish title, nor has it any presumptive value of title. It only enables the person, in whose favour the mutation is entered to pay the land revenue in question. This legal position about the mutation entries is well settled and does not require any debate. However, this Court does not find anything wrong in the enquiry being initiated by the learned SDO, Girwal condoning the delay of 35 years on the application filed by Smt. Panna Bai claiming to be the real and only daughter of deceased Heera Lal whose agricultural land stood mutated in favour of the present petitioners.
(3.) THE learned Board of Revenue while dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioner has merely directed that the SDO may investigate the matter in detail whether Panna Bai is the real daughter of deceased Heera Lal or not and holding of such enquiry cannot cause any prejudice to the petitioner. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order by which delay of 35 years has been condoned in fair use of discretion by the Revenue Courts below.;