Prakash Tatia, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE petitioner being the society through its Secretary preferred this writ petition to challenge the orders passed by the Board of Revenue dt. 24.07.1989 and for quashing of the notices issued under Section 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1956) issued by the Tehsildar, Barmer in pursuance of the order of the Board of Revenue dt. 24.07.1989 by which the Tehsildar, Barmer demanded possession of the property in dispute from the members of the petitioner society back. Brief facts of the case are that one Kesrimal claimed that he is owner of the property by virtue of the Patta in his favour by the erstwhile Jagirdar of the Barmer. The land is 1000 Hattha x 1000 Hattha (corresponding to 10834 ' x 10834'). The neighbourhood of the property is mentioned in the Patta, copy of which has been placed on record by the petitioner as Annex.20. The said Kesrimal found that in the revenue record, the name has wrongly been entered as agricultural land and in the name of State whereas according to said Kesrimal, the land was Abadi land and covered by Patta (Annex.20). The said Kesrimal submitted an application which appears to be about the year 1967 or before that before the SDO, Barmer. Before the SDO, Barmer the applicant Kesrimal produced five witnesses apart from giving his own statement and produced Patta as Ex.1. He also stated that he even sold the part of the land covered by the said Patta to one Ummed Singh by registered sale deed Annex.3 and part of the land to Khangar Singh vide Annex.2. His five witnesses also stated that the land was Abadi land and covered by the Patta. Kesrimal also produced other persons, who purchased the part of the land from Kesrimal vide registered sale deeds Ex.A/4, A/5 and A/6. On the basis of these evidence, the Tehsildar passed the order on 02.08.1967 and ordered for correction of the entry in the revenue record by mentioning the land to be Abadi land.
(3.) IT appears that in pursuance of the said order dt. 02.08.1967, the revenue authorities made relevant entries in the revenue record, namely, Jamabandi and entered the name of said Kesrimal as land holder for the land of Khasra No. 1652/1 and 1665/1. The nature of the land was also recorded as Abadi land. The said Kesrimal died and, thereafter, the name of sons of Kesrimal were also entered in the Jamabandi by order of the Gram Panchayat, Barmer dt. 28.10.1971. The position continued and further sales were affected by the Kesrimal 's decedents time to time. It appears from the order of the District Collector dt. 02.05.1980 that a notice under Section 80 was served upon Kesrimal 's decedents upon the Forest Department about their interference in the land of the Kesrimal 's decedents and claiming damages for loss caused to the property of the decedents of Kesrimal. It appears that in spite of the fact that notice under Section 80 was served upon the Forest Department in the year 1972, one application under Section 82 of the Act of 1956 was submitted before the District Collector, Barmer by the Dy. Conservator of Forests, Barmer raising grievance against the entry in the name of Kesrimal and against recording the land to be Abadi land in place of Government agricultural land. It may be worthwhile to mention here that it was not the case of even the Forest Department that land was Forest land. Be that as it may be, the said application was entertained by the learned District Collector filed under Section 82 of the Act of 1956 after about 13 years from the date of the order passed by the SDO, Barmer dt. 02.08.1967. This application was also entered after almost 8 years from the service of notice upon the Forest Department sent by the land holders as alleged land owners. The learned District Collector opined that the SDO had no jurisdiction to order change in revenue record when settlement operations were not in operation. According to learned District Collector, Barmer if the alleged land owners were owner of the property then they could have filed a regular suit for declaration of their title and also for seeking relief of correction of entries in the revenue record. The learned District Collector was of the view that the SDO had no jurisdiction to convert the land from agricultural to Abadi. It was further observed that the Patta, which was based of the title of the Kesrimal was not registered one. In view of the above reasons, the learned District Collector made a reference to the Board of Revenue for setting aside the order of the SDO dt. 02.08.1967.;