Allowed

Mithu Ram Vishnoi and Ors. v. B.O.R. and Ors.

Rajasthan HC1 Dec 2022CW/1109/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge writ bench allowed the petition holding that the Deputy Commissioner (Colonisation) lacked competence to make a reference under Section 232 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act following the precedent of Ramzankhan, setting aside the impugned order while noting that a fresh lawful reference may still be made.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is allowed and the order dated 15.02.1999 passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer is set aside.

Mithu Ram Vishnoi and Ors. Vs B.O.R. and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR.

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1109/1999

¶3

Mithu Ram Vishnoi.

¶4

Ramjas Vishnoi.

¶5

Chouthu Ram Vishnoi.

¶6

All sons of Shri Gajju Ram, resident of Manaksar, Tehsil Kolayat District Bikaner.

¶7

----Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

Board of Revenue, Rajasthan at Ajmer.

¶10

Collector cum Deputy Commissioner, Colonisation, Bikaner.

¶11

Asstt. Colonisation Commissioner, Kolayat, Bikaner.

¶12

Tehsildar, Kolayat, Bikaner.

¶13

----Respondent

¶14

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. A.K. Singh. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dinesh Kumar Joshi, AGC.

¶15

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

¶16

Order

¶17

01/12/2022

¶18

The petition is directed against the order dated 15.02.1999 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 Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (Act of 1955) vide dated 13.05.1998, for setting the order dated 18.08.1989 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 the State.

¶19

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

¶20

(2 of 2)

¶21

[CW-1109/1999]

¶22

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

¶23

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 take reference in exercise of powers conferred under section 232 of the Act of 1955.

¶24

The issue raised in the petition being squarely covered by decision in Rajzan Khan’s case is not disputed by the counsel appearing for the respondent State.

¶25

Accordingly, in the light of Bench decision of this court in Ramzan Khan’s case (supra), the writ petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 15.02.1999 passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer in reference Case No.46/1998 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.

¶26

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J

¶27

28-AnilSingh/-

Mithu Ram Vishnoi and Ors. v. B.O.R. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mithu Ram Vishnoi and Ors. v. B.O.R. 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

Ramnarayan and Ors. Vs State and Ors.

Dhudaram Vs State and Ors.

Mohan Lal Sen Vs Urban Improvement Trust, BHILWARAandANR

Sristhi Gautam Vs State of Rajasthan

Au Small Finance Bank Ltd. Vs Narpat Singh Chundawat

Smt. Radha Devi Vs State and Ors.