Mohammad Rafiq, J. - (1.) SUKHDEV Ram, the original writ petitioner, approached this Court almost three decades ago, assailing the order dated 15.6.1987 (Annexure -14) passed by the Land Settlement Commissioner -cum -Director (Consolidation) and the order dated 17.5.1965 (Annexure -6) passed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation). Sukhdev Ram filed this writ petition as far back as 12.11.1987, which has remained pending before this Court for as long as 28 years. During this interregnum, original writ -petitioner, Sukhdev Ram died, so also the original respondent No. 5 -Goverdhan, respondent No. 7 -Hanuman, respondent No. 8 -Prabhat, respondent No. 10 -Deviya, respondent No. 11 -Bhonrya, respondent No. 12 -Ladu have died. In fact, one of the L.Rs. of original respondent No. 11 i.e. Lachchi Ram also died and his legal heirs were brought on record. As against seven of the deceased respondents, 38 legal heirs had to be impleaded as party -respondents to represent their interest. But then fortunate are those two original respondents, who have survived the life of this litigation before this Court. It is indeed a sad commentary on the working of our judicial system that a writ petition should have taken long thirty eight years to get decided. Nevertheless, one must derive solace in the fact that after all this litigation, as far as the first stage before the Single Bench of the High Court is concerned, is coming to end.
(2.) THIS litigation has had a checkered history, commencing from early 60's when notification was published in the official gazette by the Government on 21st April, 1960 for consolidation of the revenue lands of village Bhampur Kalan of Tehsil Jamwa Ramgarh, District Jaipur. The Consolidation Officer appointed under Rajasthan Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1954 (for short -'the Act') prepared the scheme of consolidation, whereunder he sought to consolidate the scattered pieces of khatedari lands of the tenants into different chaks, for allotment to the tenants according to the existing valuation of the lands. Chak No. 32, 33, 34, 46 and 49 were formed prior to 1961. Sukhdev filed objections against the draft scheme of consolidation before the Consolidation Officer on the grounds that the entire land on wall "bawri wala" has not been properly valued, the chak of the barani lands of the petitioner had not been properly framed; facility of irrigation was also not considered and convenient size and shape of the land was also not considered. According to Sukhdev, lands of khasra Nos. 312 measuring 2.18 hectares, khasra No. 314 measuring 1.17 hectares and khasra No. 315 measuring 4.11 hectares, which could be conveniently irrigated by him from his own well situated in khasra No. 303, have been improperly distributed to others. While khasra No. 312 in chak No. 46 and khasra No. 315 in chak No. 34 have been given to Goverdhan, khasra No. 314 and 315 in chak No. 33 have been given to Mangilal. According to him, lands of khasra Nos. 312, 314 and 315 are quite adjacent to the chak No. 32 of his barani land comprising of khasra No. 303, 304, 305, 306, 309, 299, 307, 308 and 310. He therefore pleaded that lands of khasra Nos. 305, 307, 309 and 308 may be given to Mangi Lal and Goverdhan. Chak No. 26 allotted to Devilal, Lada Ram and Bhonrilal S/o. Mangilal is quite adjacent to the lands of khasra No. 305, 307, 308 and 309 offered by the petitioner. Consolidation Officer partly accepted his objections and allotted an additional chak regarding chahi land to him, but rejected the prayer for exchange of barani lands by order dated 19.9.1962. Petitioner -Sukhdev preferred an appeal against the aforesaid order before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation), who partly accepted the appeal and petitioner was directed to join all the concerned persons as parties. Petitioner moved an application for joining the co -sharers of "bawri wala" well also together with Mangilal, who was allotted khasra No. 314 and 315 and Goverdhan, who was allotted khasra No. 312. The co -sharers of "bawri wala" well i.e. Bansi, Ganga Bux and Ram Pratap were made parties only to avoid the controversy. The application was accepted and notices were issued to newly impleaded respondents. The Settlement Officer (Consolidation) partly accepted the appeal of the petitioner and allotted the lands of khasra No. 314 and 315 measuring 5.13 hectares in exchange of lands of khasra No. 300, 299 and part of 304 measuring 5.14 hectares and rejected the prayer regarding khasra No. 312. Mangiya, his sons Deviya, Bhonriya and Ladiya filed revision petition against the order of Settlement Officer (Consolidation) before the Director (Consolidation). During the pendency of the consolidation proceedings, Mangiya sold the lands of chak No. 33 comprising of khasra No. 314 and 315 measuring 5.13 to Ram Pratap. The Director (Consolidation) in the revision petition vide order dated 30.7.1967 impleaded Ram Pratap as non -applicant in the revision, calling upon him to put forth his claim in writing.
(3.) EVENTUALLY , the Director (Consolidation) accepted the revision petition on 31.7.1970 on the ground that the Settlement Officer has not decided the question of limitation and late joining of the parties. He remanded the matter to Settlement Officer (Consolidation) with the direction to decide these two points first. Since the consolidation operations were already closed by the time the revision petition was decided, the papers were sent to the Collector for decision by the Director (Consolidation). The Collector sent the papers to the SDO for decision. The SDO issued notices to the parties and after hearing the parties accepted the appeal of the petitioner on 7.6.1976. Again Devilal, Bhonri Lal and Ladu, respondents herein, filed revision petition against the order of SDO before the Director (Consolidation) on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. The Director (Consolidation) accepted the revision petition on the ground of jurisdiction and remanded the same to the Collector for decision on merits. The Collector, Jaipur specifically dealt with both the points and accepted the appeal of the petitioner on 9.5.1977. But in the meantime, Mangi Lal had sold the land of khasra No. 314 and 315 in chak No. 33 to Ram Pratap on 13.7.1964 for a consideration of Rs. 2,000, without obtaining any sanction from the Consolidation Officer as required under Section 29 of the Consolidation Act. Ram Pratap subsequently sold it to Goverdhan on 4.12.1968 for a sale consideration of Rs. 1,000 only. This time again Goverdhan, Narsingh, Hanuman, Prabhat and Hari Narayan, sons of Ram Pratap filed a revision petition before the Director (Consolidation) against the order of Collector. The Director (Consolidation) by order dated 15.6.1987 accepted the revision petition on the ground that rights of the affected parties and the question of limitation have not been considered and that the persons who have been cultivating the land for last 25 years, cannot be disturbed. It is against the backdrop of these facts that the present writ petition has been filed.;