Pasture land cannot confer Khatedari rights, notwithstanding contrary revenue entries or private classification.

The disputed land formed part of an area recorded in the inventory prepared under the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Acquisition of Land-Owners’ Estates Act, 1963 (“1963 Act”) as pasture land over which the erstwhile Ruler had only grazing and fodder rights in an area of 46 square miles. Despite this, the Settlement Department subsequently recorded the respondents or their predecessors as Khatedars in the revenue records.

In 1983, the Tehsildar, Jaisalmer, made a reference under Section 82 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, seeking correction of the entries. That reference was withdrawn in 1984 because of an interim stay. A subsequent reference was made through the District Collector, who found that the land had been wrongly entered as Khatedari land because pasture land was excluded from the accrual of Khatedari rights under Section 16 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (“1955 Act”).

The Board of Revenue initially accepted the reference but failed to decide the disputed property. Following a remand by the High Court, the Board rejected the reference on the ground that the State had not produced sufficient proof of the historical revenue entries or the allotment of the land for grazing.

The Single Bench upheld that decision, leading to D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1348/2011.

In the connected appeal, D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1975/2011, several persons claiming an interest in the disputed land challenged the rejection of their application for impleadment in the reference proceedings. Their writ petition against the Board of Revenue’s order was dismissed.

Whether pasture land recorded in the inventory under the 1963 Act could lawfully accrue Khatedari rights under Section 6 of that Act, read with Section 16 of the 1955 Act?

Whether the admitted inventory and the statutory classification of the land as pasture were sufficient to justify correction of the revenue entries, notwithstanding the absence of the original Khatauni or allotment order?

Whether the earlier withdrawal of the reference barred the subsequent reference on the principle of res judicata?

Whether the subsequent reference was liable to be rejected as belated or made beyond a reasonable period?

Whether the appellants in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1975/2011 were necessary or proper parties to the limited reference proceedings concerning correction of revenue entries?

The Court applied Section 6 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Acquisition of Land-Owners’ Estates Act, 1963, under which Khatedari rights do not accrue in land falling within the categories specified in Section 16 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955.

Section 16 of the 1955 Act expressly excludes pasture land from the accrual of Khatedari rights and operates notwithstanding anything inconsistent in another law.

The Court also referred to Section 92 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 and Rule 7 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Rules, 1955, concerning the setting apart of pasture land.

On res judicata, the Court held that withdrawal of an earlier reference, without a final adjudication on merits, does not satisfy the requirement that the matter must have been “heard and finally decided,” relying on Union of India v. Ranchi Municipal Corporation, 1996 (7) SCC 542.

On delay, the Court applied the principle in Tara v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2015 Raj 179 (FB), that a reference under Section 82 must be made within a reasonable time, assessed according to the facts and circumstances.

For impleadment, the Court applied Order I Rule 10 CPC, under which only necessary or proper parties—whose rights are directly affected and whose presence is required for effective adjudication—should be added.

The Court held that the inventory was an admitted and undisputed document which classified the disputed land as pasture and granted the erstwhile Ruler only limited grazing and fodder rights.

Since pasture land is expressly excluded from the accrual of Khatedari rights by Section 16 of the 1955 Act, Section 6 of the 1963 Act could not validate the subsequent entries showing the respondents or their predecessors as Khatedars.

The Board of Revenue erred in treating the absence of the Samvat 2014 Khatauni or an original allotment order as decisive, because the statutory classification in the admitted inventory independently established the legal character of the land.

Later Jamabandis recording the Ex-Ruler as estate-holder could not override the statutory consequences of the 1963 Act.

The earlier reference had been withdrawn and had not culminated in a final decision on merits; consequently, res judicata was inapplicable.

The subsequent reference, initiated in 1986 after settlement proceedings concluded between 1963 and 1974, was also not shown to be inordinately delayed, particularly in view of the earlier withdrawal and intervening proceedings.

In the connected appeal, the Court found that the impleadment applicants were neither claimants to the disputed land in the reference nor parties whose presence was necessary to determine the limited question of correction of revenue entries between the State and the respondents.

The judgments of the Board of Revenue dated 9 June 2009 and the Single Bench dated 16 July 2010 were set aside.

The revenue entries concerning the disputed land were directed to be corrected in accordance with the District Collector’s order dated 25 April 1989, and the record was directed to be transmitted to the Board of Revenue for further proceedings in accordance with law.

D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1975/2011 was dismissed.

The Court upheld the rejection of the appellants’ application for impleadment, holding that they were neither necessary nor proper parties under Order I Rule 10 CPC.

Each party was directed to bear its own litigation costs, and all pending applications were disposed of.