Allowed

Smt. Vimla Devi v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC11 Jul 2024CW/3214/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court held that a reference to the Board of Revenue made after a delay of 42 years violating settled Supreme Court and High Court precedent is illegal. Court allowed both writ petitions, set aside impugned orders, and disposed of stay petitions.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions allowed; reference order dated 28.04.2008 and Board of Revenue order dated 18.12.2023 set aside; stay petitions disposed of.

Smt. Vimla Devi Vs State of Rajasthan — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:28346]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

(1) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3225/2024

¶4

Ashok Kumar @ Simbhu Ram S/o Shri Hema Ram, Aged About 48 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 9, Modi Khurd, Tehsil Parbatsar, District Deedwana-Kuchaman.

¶5

Suresh S/o Shri Hema Ram, Aged About 51 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 9, Modi Khurd, Tehsil Parbatsar, District Deedwana-Kuchaman.

¶6

Nathu Ram S/o Late Shri Lichman Ram, Aged About 65 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 9, Modi Khurd, Tehsil Parbatsar, District Deedwana-Kuchaman.

¶7

Dunga Ram S/o Prabhu Ram, Aged About 63 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 9, Modi Khurd, Tehsil Parbatsar, District Deedwana-Kuchaman.

¶8

Gopi Ram S/o Prabhu Ram, Aged About 64 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 9, Modi Khurd, Tehsil Parbatsar, District Deedwana-Kuchaman.

¶9

Khema Ram S/o Khumha Ram, Aged About 62 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 9, Modi Khurd, Tehsil Parbatsar, District Deedwana-Kuchaman.

¶10

----Petitioners

¶11

Versus

¶12

State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar Parbatsar, District Deedwana-Kuchaman.

¶13

----Respondent

¶14

Connected With

¶15

(2) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3214/2024

¶16

Smt. Vimla Devi W/o Shri Arjun Ram, Aged About 43 Years, Ward No. 9, Modi Khurd, Tehsil Parbatsar, District Deedwana - Kuchaman.

¶17

Smt. Lali Devi W/o Shri Jayara Ram, Aged About 51 Years, Ward No. 9, Modi Khurd, Tehsil Parbatsar, District Deedwana - Kuchaman.

¶18

Smt. Geeta Devi W/o Shri Sukh Lal, Aged About 53 Years, Ward No. 9, Modi Khurd, Tehsil Parbatsar, District Deedwana - Kuchaman.

¶19

----Petitioners

¶20

(2 of 4) [CW-3225/2024]

¶21

[2024:RJ-JD:28346]

¶22

Versus

¶23

State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar Parbatsar, District Deedwana-Kuchaman.

¶24

----Respondent

¶25

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.	Vishal Sharma
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	SR Paliwal,GC

¶26

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA Order

¶27

11/07/2024

¶28

Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the order dated 18.12.2023 whereby the reference was allowed by the Board of Revenue is clearly illegal and contrary to law.

¶29

Stating the relevant facts, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that land was mutated in petitioners’ predecessor-intitle (Baldev Ram) in the year 1965. Whereafter, the petitioner No.1-Ashok had purchased the land prior to the reference while petitioners in the S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3214/2024 namely Vimla and others had purchased the land after the reference was made.

¶30

It is not in dispute that the reference was made in the year 2007 and registered before the Board of Revenue in the year 2008 and the same came to be allowed vide order dated 18.12.2023. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that reference was made after about 42 years of the land being mutated in the name of Baldev Ram somewhere in or around the year 1965. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in the light of the judgment of Apex Court rendered in the case of Joint Collector Ranga Reddy District and Anr. vs. D. Narsing Rao

[2024:RJ-JD:28346]

[CW-3225/2024]

(3 of 4)

and Ors. reported in (2015) 3 SCC 695 , so also the judgment of full bench of this Court rendered in the case of Tara vs State of Rajasthan , reported in (2015) 4 RLW 1 , the reference which was made after unexplained and inordinate delay of about 50 years and 42 years respectively, was held liable to be set aside.

¶35

Mr. Paliwal, learned Government counsel submitted that in any case the land belong to temple or the deity/doli and therefore, the same had been wrongly recorded in the name of Pujari namely Baldev Ram and since, the illegality was apparent and the mutation entry was void, the delay in making reference deserves to be ignored.

¶36

So far as the case of Vimla Devi and others (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3214/2024) is concerned, Mr. Paliwal, learned Government counsel argued that these petitioners had purchased the land during the course of pendency of reference and no application for impleadment was filed by the petitioners and therefore, they cannot maintain the present writ petition. 8. Adverting to the arguments of Mr. Paliwal, learned Government counsel regarding maintainability of the writ petition filed by Vimla Devi and others (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3214/2024), suffice it to observe that the petitioners herein have procured the land from Satya Narayan. Maybe the reference was pending and they did not choose to file any application for impleadment but then, the petitioners’ rights to challenge the order of Board of Revenue (18.12.2023) cannot be denied as they are admittedly subsequent purchaser.

¶37

The lapse on the part of the petitioners, of not seeking their impleadment, is not fatal to proprietary right vested in them.

(4 of 4)

[2024:RJ-JD:28346]

[CW-3225/2024]

In view of the aforesaid, the ojbection raised by Mr. Paliwal, learned Government counsel is over-ruled.

¶42

Without pronouncing upon the rights of petitioners and their predecessor’s entitlement of getting the land mutated in their name, this Court is of the view that reference that has been made after 42 years of mutation entry was per-se illegal and contrary to judgment rendered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of

¶43

Joint Collector Ranga Reddy District (supra) and full bench judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Tara (supra). The legal position in this regard, is well settled that even when there is no period of limitation prescribed for exercise of any power, revisional, reference or otherwise, such power must be exercised within a reasonable period of time as the intervening delay, may lead to creation of third-party rights, which cannot be trampled with.

¶44

Consequently both the writ petitions are hereby, allowed.

¶45

The reference made vide order dated 28.04.2008 so also the consequential order of the Board of Revenue dated 18.12.2023 is hereby set aside.

¶46

Stay petitions also stand disposed of.

¶47

(DINESH MEHTA),J

¶48

23-raksha/-

Smt. Vimla Devi v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Vimla Devi v. State of Rajasthan

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

Sms College of Nursing Vs State of Rajasthan

Shyam Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajendra Baheti Vs M/S. Quality Conduit Pvt. Ltd., and Ors.

Shakti Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Satpal Vs State of Rajasthan

Lokendra Singh Vs Rajdeep Singh