1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned legality of order dated 15.2.18 passed by the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, whereby while
accepting the reference made by the District Collector, Deedwana under Section 82 of Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (for short “the Act of
1956â€), vide order dated 10.12.08, mutation of the land ad measuring 0.08 bighas category ‘gair mumkin nadi’, comprising khasra no.22 and
10.06 bighas category ‘gair mumkin paitan’ comprising khasra no.23 of villageDhananwa, Tehsil-Parbatsar, District-Nagaur made in favour of
the petitioner’s father Pemaram, stands cancelled.
2. The relevant facts are that lands ad measuring 0.08 bighas comprising khasra no.22 categorised as ‘gair mumkin nadi’ and 10.06 bighas
comprising khasra no.23 categorised as ‘gair mumkin paitan’ were mutated in name of the petitioner’s father Pemaram vide mutation
no.107 pursuant to order dated 14.12.73 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Parbatsar. After the death of Pemaram, the land was mutated in the
name of the petitioner vide mutation no.149.
3. The District Collector, Nagaur made a reference under Section 82 of the Act of 1956 for cancellation of the mutation of the land in question made
in favour of the petitioner and to enter the land in the revenue record as ‘gair mumkin nadi’ and ‘gair mukin paitan’. The Board of
Revenue after due consideration arrived at the finding that keeping in view the provisions of Section 16 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short
“the Act of 1955â€), the land categorised as ‘gair mumkin nadi’ and ‘gair mumkin paitan’ were not available for allotment and no
khatedari right could accrue in respect of such land in favour of the petitioner and thus, keeping in view a Bench decision of this court dated 2.8.04
rendered in the matter of ‘Abdul Rahman vs. State’, the position of the land deserves to be restored as ‘gair mumkin nadi’ and ‘gair
mumkin paitan’. Accordingly, the mutation effected in favour of the petitioner’s father and subsequently in favour of the petitioner, have
been cancelled and the position of the land as it was existing prior to the mutation effected in favour of the petitioner’s father is ordered to be
restored. Hence, this petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Board has committed gross illegality in coming to the conclusion that the lands in question fall
within the category of 'gair mumkin nadi' and ‘gair mumkin paitan’. It is submitted that the khatedari rights were conferred upon the
petitioner’s father by the Sub Divisional Officer, Parbatsar vide order dated 14.12.73 taking into consideration his long possession over the land in
question and thus, after a lapse of 35 years, it is absolutely unjustified to divest the petitioner from his khateadri land on the pretext of the judgment
rendered by this court in Abdul Rahman’s case (supra). Learned counsel submitted that the order impugned has been passed without extending an
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and therefore, deserves to be set aside for this reason alone. Learned counsel submitted that as a matter of
fact, the reference made after so many years was liable to be rejected as barred by limitation.
5. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel and perused the material on record.
6. Indisputably, the lands in question were recorded as ‘gair mumkin nadi’ and ‘gair mumkin paitan’ in the revenue record of Samvat
2006. It is not in dispute that the category of the land was never changed by an order of the competent authority and thus, by virtue of provisions of
Section 16 of the Act of 1955 and Rule 4(1) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Agriculture Land) Rules, 1970( for short “the Rulesâ€),
no khatedari rights could have accrued in favour of the petitioner’s father who was alleged to be in cultivatory possession thereof.Â
7. In the matter of 'Abdul Rahman v. Stateâ€, 2005 RRT 59, a Bench of this court has issued direction to the State Government to remove
encroachment in the catchment area of the water bodies. That apart, in “Suo Motu v. State of Rajasthan“ (S.B.C.Writ Petition No.11153/11),
disposed of by Jaipur Bench of this court vide order dated 29.5.12, specific directions are issued restraining allotment of the land falling in catchment
areas of water reservoirs like Johar, Nala, Tank, River, Pond etc. and it is further directed that the appropriate action shall be taken for cancellation of
the allotment made in defiance of Section 16 of the Act of 1955.
8. In the considered opinion of this court, keeping in view the settled position of law discussed as above, the decision of the Board of Revenue in
accepting the reference made by the District Collector, Nagaur and cancelling the allotment made in favour of the petitioner’s father by SDO,
Parbatsar, does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality or jurisdictional error so as to warrant interference by this court in exercise of its supervisory
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
9. A perusal of the order impugned reveals that the petitioner did not appear in the matter before the Board of Revenue despite service. If the notices
were not duly served, nothing prevented the petitioner from making an appropriate application before the Board of Revenue for recalling/review of the
order dated 15.2.18.
10. No case for interference by this court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is made out.
11. In the result, the petition fails, it is hereby dismissed in limine.Â
