Collector's Reference Made After Delay Of Over 3 Years Invalid In Law: Rajasthan HC Quashes Order Mutating Land Entries In Deity's Favour
The Jodhpur bench of the Rajasthan High Court quashed a Collector's 20-year-old reference order pertaining to a land parcel which said that as the land belonged to a deity–Doli Mandit Shri Thakur Ji Purohita, it could not have been recorded in the name of the original owner, from whom the petitioners had subsequently purchased the land. It also set aside the Board of Revenue's order which...
The Jodhpur bench of the Rajasthan High Court quashed a Collector's 20-year-old reference order pertaining to a land parcel which said that as the land belonged to a deity–Doli Mandit Shri Thakur Ji Purohita, it could not have been recorded in the name of the original owner, from whom the petitioners had subsequently purchased the land.
It also set aside the Board of Revenue's order which set aside the mutation entries of a land belonging to the certain persons (petitioners), who had purchased the land from the original owner's son, while the Collector's reference was pending. In doing so the court reiterated that reference made after a delay of over three years is invalid in law.
The bench of Justice Dinesh Mehta highlighted that the reference was made by the Collector 20 years after the mutation entries in favour of the original owner from whom the petitioners had purchase the land and held that in the Supreme Court cases of Tara vs State of Rajasthan and Joint Collector Ranga Reddy District and Anr. vs. D. Narsing Rao & Ors it was held that reference made after a "delay of more than three years was invalid in the eyes of law".
The Court was hearing a petition filed by the petitioners challenging the reference order of the Collector and the resulting order of the Board of Revenue as per which the mutation entries in relation to a land belonging to the petitioners were set aside on the ground that the land belonged to the deity who was a perpetual minor.
It was the case of the petitioners that the land belonged to the original owner. 20 years later, the Collector made a reference that the land belonged to the deity and thus could not have been recorded in the name of the original owner. During the pendency of the reference, the petitioners purchased the land from the original owner, after which the Board of Revenue accepted the reference.
The petitioners argued that firstly, the original owner passed away during the pendency of the reference order and the Board of Revenue passed the impugned order without his legal representative being brought on record. Hence, the order was passed against a dead person. Secondly, it was submitted that the petitioners were bona fide purchasers and the reference was initiated after 20 years of the mutation entry which was illegal.
The Court highlighted that it was surprising that the order was passed by the Board of Revenue without serving notices to the legal representatives of the original owner after his death, thereby not giving them any opportunity of hearing.
"The impugned order passed by the Board is clearly contrary to law, as the same has been passed without substituting and affording any opportunity of hearing to Thakur Das being legal representative of Shiva Ram, who had passed away during the pendency of the reference proceedings. The fact that legal representatives of said Shiva Ram had not been brought on record can be discerned from the cause title of the order dated 28.08.1995 passed by the Board," the bench said.
It opined that in such a case the matter must be remanded back to the Board for deciding after issuing notices to the legal representatives.
"Full Bench of this Court in the case of Tara (supra) so also Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Joint Collector Ranga Reddy District (supra) have held that reference made after delay of more than three years is invalid in the eyes of law. In view of the afore discussion, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 05.11.1986 (Annexure-5) passed by the District Collector, Barmer making reference so also the consequential order dated 28.08.1995 (Annexure-6) passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer are hereby quashed and set aside," the court said.
Title: Ram Chandra & Ors. v The Board of Revenue & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 354