Allowed

Ram Singh v. State of Raj. and Ors.

Rajasthan HC7 Jul 2021CW/602/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition relying on a prior Bench decision holding that the Deputy Commissioner (Colonisation) lacked competence to make a reference under Section 232 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. The impugned order setting aside a previous revenue record entry was quashed.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 10.09.1998 passed by the Board of Revenue setting aside the order dated 16.06.84 is set aside.

Ram Singh Vs State of Raj. and Ors. — Landlord and Tenant | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 602/1999

¶3

Ram Singh S/o Raju Singh by caste Rajput R/o Sadolai. Teh. Kolayat, Distt, Bikaner

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Rajasthan through Colonisation Tehsildar Kolayat.

¶7

The Assistant Colonisation Commissioner

¶8

The Deputy Colonisation Commissioner, Bikaner

¶9

The Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer.

¶10

----Respondent

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Varun Goyal For Respondent(s) : Mr. DK Joshi, AGC

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

¶13

Judgment / Order

¶14

07/07/2021

¶15

This petition is directed against the order dated 10.09.1998 passed by the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer whereby reference made by the Deputy Commissioner (Colonisation),Bikaner, in purported exercise of power conferred under Section 232 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (Act of 1955) vide order dated 29.06.1998, for setting the order dated 16.06.84 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (Colonisation) recording the names of petitioners as “Gair-Khatedar(s)” in the revenue record, has been answered in favour of State, and the order dated 16.06.84 has been set aside.

¶16

With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard at this stage.

¶17

(2 of 2)

¶18

[CW-602/1999]

¶19

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the controversy involved in the instant petition stands covered by Bench decision of this Court in DBSAW No.789/2003-

¶20

RamzanKhan Vs. State of Rajasthan , wherein after due consideration of all the relevant aspects this Court held that Deputy Commissioner(Colonisation) is not competent to make reference in exercise of powers conferred under Section 232 of the Act of 1955.

¶21

The issue raised in the petition being squarely covered by decision in Ramzan Khna’s case is not disputed by the counselappearing for the respondent-State.

¶22

Accordingly, in the light of Bench decision of this Court in Ramzan Khan’s case (supra), the writ petition is allowed. Theorder impugned dated 10.09.1998 passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer in Reference Case No.63/98 R.T. Act/Bikaner, is set aside. However, it is made clear that the competent authority shall not be precluded from making reference afresh in accordance with law.

¶23

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J

¶24

Surabhii/45-

Ram Singh v. State of Raj. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Singh v. State of Raj. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ogar Ram Vs Govind Kumar

Indrachand Vs Thana Ram

Indrachand Vs Phula Ram

Nu Vista Limited, Vs the State of Rajasthan

Nu Vista Limited Vs State of Rajasthan

M/S. Nagaram Parmar Vs Chairman, Jodhpur Deve. Authority