- (1.) This appeal has been filed by the unsuccessful writ petitioner, seeking to challenge the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 19.3.2001, whereby the writ petition was dismissed, and the orders of the Board of Revenue dated 30.11.1999, Annex.6, and dated 18.4.2000, Annex.8, whereby the reference made under Section 232 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act was accepted, and review petition was dismissed, have been upheld.
(2.) The facts of the case are, that the petitioner Mukhtiar filed the writ petition, alleging inter-alia that one Santa Singh was allotted lands in Kila No.6 to 10 measuring 5 bighas in Murabba No.36 Chak No.21 PS, which lands were mutated in the name of Santa Singh vide mutation dated 30.10.74. Copy of the passbook has been submitted as Annex.1. Santa Singh was recorded as Khatedar, who transferred the land in the name of the petitioner vide registered sale deed dated 1.5.73, copy whereof has been produced as Annex.2. The petitioner claims to be in cultivatory possession of the land since 1973 as Khatedar.
(3.) According to the petitioner, the Tehsildar Raisinghnagar submitted an application before the Collector Sriganganagar for setting aside the allotment dated 15.5.67 made in favour of Santa Singh, and consequent mutation and sale, copy of this application has been produced as Annex.3. The petitioner submitted reply on 11.9.1997, Annex.4, and Additional Collector vide order dated 28.8.98, Annex.5, made a reference to the Board of Revenue for setting aside the allotment, mutation and subsequent sale. The petitioner in para 7 has alleged, that this reference was in relation to lands, bearing Kila No. 21 to 25 of Chak No.21 PS of Murabba No.36, while the lands belonging to the petitioner, are comprised in Kila No.6 to 10. The petitioner has further alleged, that Board of Revenue set aside the allotment by accepting reference, without considering the question that the land allotted to Santa Singh was not the land of Gurudwara, referred to by the learned Member of the Board of Revenue in his order, i.e. Kila No.21 to 25. The lands belonging to petitioner and Santa Singh are in Kila No.6 to 10, and not in Kila No.21 to 25. Lands in Kila No.6 to 10 were never in the name of Gurudwara. Thus, the order was claimed to be without jurisdiction, void and perverse. This is produced as Annex.6. The petitioner then filed a review petition, bringing to the notice of the Board of Revenue, that the lands belonging to Gurudwara were in Kila No.21 to 25, whereas lands allotted to Santa Singh were in Kila No.6 to 10, which was not Gurudwara's land. Copy of review petition has been produced as Annex.7, and it is contended, that the Board of Revenue refused to consider the submissions made in the review application, and has dismissed the same on the ground, that points raised in the review petition are the same, which were argued at the time of decision of the reference, and therefore, the review application does not lie. Copy of this order has been produced as Annex.8. With giving these facts, the orders are challenged only on two grounds, first being, that the Board of Revenue specifically mentioned in the orders that the lands belonging to Gurudwara are situated in Kila No.21 to 25, but lands belonging to Santa Singh are situated in Kila No.6 to 10, thus, lands allotted to Santa Singh could not be said to be Gurudwara land, and the lands allotted to Santa Singh were recorded as Sivay Chak in the revenue record. Thus, the Board of Revenue had no jurisdiction to cancel the allotment made in favour of Santa Singh on 15.5.67, on the ground of the land being belonging to Gurudwara. The other ground given is, that the order passed by the Board of Revenue purports to deprive the petitioner from his property without authority of law, and offends Article 300A of the Constitution.;