Amitava Roy, J. - (1.) THE instant appeals witness a challenge to the order dated 20.11.2013, whereby notices have been issued in the five writ proceedings instituted by the respondent No. 3 herein against the appellants as well as the official respondents, assailing the judgment and order dated 05.06.2013 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur in a series of appeals including Appeal No. 146/2013, corresponding to S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17882/2013.
(2.) WE have heard N.K. Maloo, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. V.K. Tamoliya, Advocate for the appellants and Mr. Lokesh Sharma & Mr. G. Bardar, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 3. The framework of facts being identical qua the issues to be addressed, for the sake of convenience and brevity, the pleadings of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17882/2013, would be referred.
(3.) BRIEFLY stated, the Prescribed Authority under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (for short, hereafter referred to as 'the Act') had, by its order dated 23.08.2010 under Section 90 -B(3) thereof, resumed the land admeasuring 5.48 hectare and 1.88 hectare, covered under various Khasra Nos. i.e. 1, 2, 4, 67, 68, 69 etc., located at village Shishyawas, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur, in favour of the State for conversion and allotment to the appellants herein. After a lapse of about three years, the respondent No. 3 filed an appeal being No. 146/2013 before the learned Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur contending, inter alia, that it i.e. Thakur Ji Shree Gopal Ji Maharaj, was the recorded Khatedar of the said land, which was registered as 'Muafi Mandir' in the revenue records and that at the time of settlement proceedings conducted by the Settlement Department in Samvat 2015 to 2024, the names of Bhura, Kanha and Chothu S/o. Mangilal, ere wrongly entered therein as cultivators and eventually, the said land was transferred in the name of appellants herein. It asserted that it being a perpetual minor and title holder of the land, it could not have been divested thereof by the Settlement Department, in the manner done. It pleaded that the decision of the Prescribed Authority under Section 90 -B of the Act was also repugnant to Section 46 of the Act as the land belonging to the perpetual minor, could not be transferred. That a reference on this issue was also pending before the Additional Collector, Jaipur, was mentioned. It was contended that the respondent No. 3, having come to know of the order dated 23.08.2010 on 05.03.2013, it filed an appeal and as the same was belated, an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, was also lodged. In the appeal, the appellants not only questioned the maintainability thereof contending that it was not sustainable as the order dated 23.08.2010 had been passed under Section 90 -B(3) of the Act, but also asserted that contemporaneous records did not demonstrate that the land involved had ever been entered in the revenue records, registering the respondent No. 3 to be the Khatedar thereof.;