Puran Nath and Others vs State and Others

N.P. Gupta, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned order.

The learned Single Judge by the impugned order dated 02.05.2002 has dismissed the writ petition of the appellants. The petitioners sought to challenge by way of writ petition the orders passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Annex.5A and consequent conferment of Khatedari rights on the private respondent. The writ petition was filed in the year 1991 while Annex.5A is as old as 12.06.1965.

The learned Single Judge has considered that after resumption of jagir, a list of personal properties was given and in that list, the land in question was declared to be personal property of Jagirdar being Annex.R/1 and the Jagir Commissioner vide Annex.R/2 dated 21.9.1957 declared that property to be personal property of the Jagirdar. A review petition filed against that order was also dismissed vide order, Annex.R/3, dated 07.07.1958. A revision against that order also failed before the Board of Revenue vide order, Annex. R/4 dated 11.07.1959.

Obviously thus, the decision of the Jagir Commissioner became final and according to the provisions of Section 46 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagir Act, 1952 no civil regular Court had jurisdiction in respect of any matter, which is required to be settled or decided or dealt with by any officer or authority under that Act, and according to Sub-section (2), no order made by any such officer or authority under the Act shall be called in question by any Court. In that view of the matter, it is not open to the petitioners to assail Annex.5A.

In our view, learned Single Judge was also right in holding that the order, Annex.5A is as old as 1965, while the writ was filed in 1991, which is grossly belated and therefore, rightly declined to exercise the discretionary power under Article 226 jurisdiction.

Learned Counsel for the appellant invited our attention to the judgment, Annex.R1/4 being the judgment of the SDO, wherein some doubt was caste on the authenticity of the order of the Jagir Commissioner, but then, a look at Annex.R1/5 would show that this judgment, Annex.R1/4 had been set aside and it is not disclosed by anyone that after Annex.R1/5, any order adverse to the private respondent had been passed by any competent authority, against the private respondent No. 2 and 3.

Thus, we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.