[2025:RJ-JP:6399] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10066/2016 The State of Rajasthan through Tehsildar Tehsil Phagi, Distt. Jaipur ----Applicant/Petitioner Versus Sumer Singh (deceased) through legal representatives/purchasers/transferee by consent:- 1. Ramnarayan S/o Moharu Ram 2. Gopal S/o Moharu Ram 3. Kishor S/o Moharu Ram 4. Manna Lal S/o Ramkaran 5. Shriram S/o Rupa 6. Jagdish S/o Syokaran All are R/o Chittora Tehsil Phagi Distt. Jaipur ----Defendants/Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Neeraj Batra, GC with Ms. Gunjan Chawla For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ram Mohan Sharma with Mr. Ankit Agrawal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL Order 13/02/2025 This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 27.09.2011 passed by the Board of Revenue Rajasthan, Ajmer (for brevity, ‘Board of Revenue) in reference petition no.827/2002: State Vs. Sumer Singh whereby, while dismissing the reference, mutation in favour of the respondents has been maintained. The relevant facts in brief are that vide its order dated 19.01.2002, the Additional Collector-Second, Jaipur made a reference to the Board of Revenue under Section 82 of the [2025:RJ-JP:6399] (2 of 3) [CW-10066/2016] Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 seeking cancellation of mutation of the subject land in favour of the respondents on the premise that the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Chittora had no authority to record the mutation under the provisions of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, there was no registered document available on record to support the case of the respondents that the subject land stood transferred in their favour on account of compromise and partition and also for the reason that the transfer was made in favour of the persons who were neither residents of the village nor, used to cultivate the land only to escape from the ceiling law. The aforesaid reference has been dismissed by he Board of Revenue vide order impugned dated 27.09.2011. Learned counsel for the petitioner assailing the order impugned submits that since, it has been passed without considering the reasonings assigned by the Additional Collector in its order dated 19.01.2002, it is bad in law. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition be allowed, the order impugned dated 27.09.2011 be quashed and set aside and the reference be allowed. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer. Heard. Considered. While dismissing the reference, the Board of Revenue has held that the subject mutation no.388 entered in favour of the respondents was submitted by the Patwari pursuant to the order dated 22.01.1971 passed by the Board of Revenue in revision petition no.8/1971 and the reference order of the Additional Collector dated 19.01.2002 does not reflect consideration of the [2025:RJ-JP:6399] (3 of 3) [CW-10066/2016] aforesaid order dated 22.01.1971 which vitiates it. It was further held that without seeking cancellation of the order passed by the Board of Revenue, the mutation no.388 could not be cancelled. In the considered view of this Court, the reasonings assigned by the Board of Revenue vide its order dated 27.09.2011 is perfectly valid and are based on sound legal principle. Learned State Counsel has not been able to demonstrate that the aforesaid finding is perverse and is not based on material on record. In view thereof, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition and it is dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly. (MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J PRAGATI/s-217