Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Shyam Lal Nayak vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors on 1 March, 2017
Author: M.N. Bhandari
Bench: M.N. Bhandari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
JAIPUR
S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 1930 / 2017
Shyam Lal son of Shri Gulab, aged about 62 Years, by caste
Nayak, resident of Ward No. 23, Near 7 Batti, Udaipurwati, District
Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through Tehsildar,, Udaipurwati, District
Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
..Applicant/Non-Petitioner
2. Prem wife of Mohan Lal, by Caste Brahmin, resident of
Udaipurwati, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
3. Muna Ram son of Shri Dalu Ram, by Caste Mali, Udaipurwati,
District Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
..Non-Applicant/Non-Petitioner
4. Rukmani wife of Subhash (Since Deceased on 13.8.2013)
5. Shankar Lal son of Subhash (Since Deceased in 1996)
6. Babu Lal Son of Shri Gulab
All by caste Nayak, residents of Ward No. 23, Near 7 Batti,
Udaipurwati, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
----Non-Applicants/Proforma Non-Petitioners
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prakash Joshi for Mr. Ajay Gupta
For Respondent(s) :
_____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI Order 01/03/2017 (2 of 3) [CW-1930/2017] By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the order dated 30th September, 1997 passed by the Additional Collector making reference under Section 82 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short "the Act of 1955"). The order passed by the Board of Revenue answering the reference vide order dated 27 th March, 2006 has also been assailed.
The precise ground to challenge the impugned orders is violation of the principles of natural justice as the petitioner is grandson of Surja but was not given opportunity of hearing at the time of making reference and even answering it by the Board of Revenue.
I find that legal heirs of Surja were given opportunity of hearing not only by the Additional Collector but by the Board of Revenue and after hearing them, reference has been answered vide order dated 27th March, 2006.
It is a case where sale was hit by Section 42 of the Act of 1955. The transfer of the land has been made in favour of a candidate not belonging to SC/ST. The sale of land of SC/ST cannot be made to a candidate of other caste. In view of above, proceedings under Section 175 of the Act of 1955 have been directed. I do not find any illegality in the reference as well as order passed by the Board of Revenue as sale of land belonging to a candidate of SC or ST category to any other caste member is not permissible. The legal heirs of Surja were heard by the Additional Collector as well as Board of Revenue and it was at the stage when Surja died and his legal heirs were brought on record. No objection was taken at the stage when legal heirs were brought (3 of 3) [CW-1930/2017] on record and now present writ petition has been filed after lapse of 11 years in the hands of grandson when predecessor had represented the case.
In view of aforesaid, I do not find any ground to cause interference in the impugned orders. The writ petition is dismissed having no merit.
(M.N. BHANDARI)J. FRBOHRA