- (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) THE petitioner in the present writ petition has challenged the order dated 18.10.2007 whereby the appeal preferred by the respondent Nos. 5 to 9 has been dismissed as not pressed and the order dated 11.7.06 passed by the Board of Revenue whereby the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner refusing to implead the petitioner as party in the appeal pending before him, was upheld by the Board of Revenue. The dispute is about the land which originally belonged to Mangla son of Ghasi. It is alleged that Mangla, who is resident of village Bhatesari, had left the village and did not return back for a long time. His wife Nangi who did not have any child, adopted Nanga, who is nephew of his husband and son of Mangla, as his son and made him to do the 'mrityubhoj' of Mangla and custom of 'pagri' was performed and he was accepted as legal heir of Mangla, who was taken as dead. On that basis, mutation in his favour with regard to the land in dispute was attested in the year 1970. Petitioner claims to have purchased the aforesaid land from Nanga on 7.4.1971 and thereafter mutation was also entered in his name on 8.3.1973. Sometime thereafter Mangla returned to the Village and he filed suit before the Assistant Collector on 7.9.1982 for declaration, ejectment and permanent injunction with regard to the land in dispute. That time Nanga and petitioner contested the suit and filed the joint written statement. In the suit, plaintiff Mangla filed application for appointment of Receiver under Section 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1951 and the Assistant Collector, Jaipur by order dated 21.4.1984 appointed Tehsildar Bassi as Receiver. Separately, Mangla filed an appeal against the mutation dated 20.9.1970 entered in favour of Nanga. The said appeal was allowed by the Additional Collector on 8.9.1986. It was thereafter the Collector vide order dated 30.3.1988 made a reference under Section 82 of the Land Revenue Act to the Board of Revenue for cancellation of the mutation No. 30 which was entered in favour of the petitioner. This reference was allowed by order dated 1.10.1988.
(3.) IN the meantime, Mangla expired and mutation was attested in favour of his widow Rama Devi and Ram Kanyan on 27.12.1996. Subsequently, however, the Gram Panchayat, Bhurthal cancelled the aforesaid mutation made in favour of Rama Devi and Ram Kanyan and the same was attested in favour of Nanga on 19.1.1997. This order was challenged by them before Divisional Commissioner who vide order dated 22.12.1997 remanded the matter back to the Tehsildar for conducting fresh inquiry in regard to the legal representatives of the deceased Mangla. The said order was challenged by both the parties before the Board of Revenue, which however rejected their revision petitions by common order dated 3.1.02. Tehsildar Bassi recognized legal representatives of Nanga namely his wife Bhonri Devi and sons Ram Lal, Gopal, Kana, Badri as the legal representative and directed for attesting mutation in their favour. Accordingly, mutation was entered in their favour on 15.8.2004. Ram Kalyan filed appeal against that order before the Divisional Commissioner on 19.6.2007. Subsequently, it appears from the record that by two registered sale deeds dated 19.8.2004 and 4.9.2004, the legal representatives of Nanga sold certain part of the very same land to Ram Chandra and others. It was at that stage that the petitioner had moved an application before the Divisional Commissioner in pending appeal for his impleadment on 9.5.2005. That application was however dismissed by the Divisional Commissioner on 11.7.2006 and thereafter his revision petition filed against that order was dismissed by Board of Revenue on 18.1.2007.;