Parakash Tatia, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) This special appeal is against the order/judgment dated 21st July, 2000 passed by the learned Single Judge in SBCWP NO. 2845/1999 by which the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition of the private respondents-writ petitioners on the ground that the controversy is covered by the decision given by this Court in SBCWP No. 3351/1995 -Nand Lal v. State of Rajasthan & Ors decided on 1st August, 1999, which happens to be reported in 1999(3) RLW (Raj.) 1893.
(3.) Brief facts of the case are that the agricultural land in question situated in the village filling in the jurisdiction of the Addl. Collector, Jalore bearing Khasra No. 936 measuring 16 bighas 14 biswas was initially recorded in the name of Seviya and Khetiya in the Khautoni Bandobasth from Samwat year 2009 to 2012. The said Seviya and Khetiay are the members of the Scheduled Casts and by virtue of Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, no land of member of Scheduled Caste could have been transferred or alienated in favour of the member other than the member of the Scheduled Caste. Be it as it may be, by virtue of mutation no. 83 dated 23rd May, 1961, the land was mutated in the name of Hazari Mai - the ancestor of the appellants. This mutation order was sought to be challenged under Section 82 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1956) through the Tehsildar, Jalore, upon which a case no. 330/92 was registered in court of Addl. Collector, Jaloer. The Addl. Collector, Jalore vide order dated 8th April, 1994 refused to make reference to the Board of Revenue for setting aside the mutation no. 83 on the ground that though names of Seviya and Khetiya were recorded in the revenue record, but in Khasra Girdhawari of the relevant year 2012 to 2016, the name of father of the non-applicant no. 1 was already recorded. He also paid the land revenue which as proved by the rent receipts produced by non-applicant Mishri Mai S/o of Hazari Mai. The learned Addl. Collector was also of the view that after 30 years, there is no reason to make any reference for cancellation of the mutation order.;