M.N. Bhandari, J. - (1.) THESE writ petitions involve common question of facts and law thus were heard and have been decided by this order. A challenge is made to the order of the Board of Revenue so as the order of Additional Collector.
(2.) LEARNED counsel submits that the petitioners had purchased a land through registered sale deed in the year 1964. The mutation was opened in favour of the petitioners. The Additional Collector sent a reference to the Board of Revenue under Section 82 of the Land Revenue Act ignoring the delay and limitation for reference as it was after 38 years of mutation in the name of the petitioners. The Board of Revenue accepted the reference which was then challenged by maintaining special appeal before the Board of Revenue, but it was also dismissed. The order of the Additional Collector to make a reference was incompetent as it was after long delay of 38 years. The reference under Section 82 can be made within reasonable time and not with the delay of 38 years. Thus on the aforesaid ground itself, the reference should have been decided holding it to be incompetent but the Board of Revenue answered the reference against the petitioners in ignorance of the aforesaid.
(3.) THE Additional Collector as well as Board of Revenue even failed to consider that one Govind Lal Dev was having khatedari before Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 came in effect. He became khatedar in view of Section 15 of the Act, 1955. In the background, the purchase of land by the petitioners from said Govind Lal Dev through registered sale deed could not have been nullified so as the mutation. Govind Lal Dev was recorded as khatedar even before the Act of 1955 i.e. on 10.07.1953. A challenge to the aforesaid was made but the Board of Revenue affirmed the order followed by challenge through a writ petition but was dismissed. Once an order was passed favourable to Govind Lal Dev and was upheld upto High Court, the Additional Collector was incompetent to make a reference so as to nullify the earlier judgment of the Board of Revenue, upheld by the High Court. The aforesaid aspect was also ignored by the competent authority not only for making reference but while answering it. The acceptance of the reference under Section 82 resulted in nullifying the earlier order of the Board of Revenue so as the High Court. The right and possession in the land was under Jaipur State Revenue Laws and having adjudicated the dispute by the competent authority, should not have been nullified by the Board of Revenue.;