ORDER
Shethna, J.
(1). All these petitions are disposed of by this common order as common question of law is involved in these petitions.
(2). Learned counsel Sh. Sharma for the petitioners in all these petitions submitted that Settlement Officer issued Parcha Lagan in favour of entire village people including the present petitioners, but some how or other, references were made only in these four cases by the Addl. Collector and the same was accepted by the Board of Revenue in exercise of its power under Sec. 9 read with Sec. 84 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956. He submitted that same is in clear violation of Art. 14 of the Constitution. He also submitted that reference made by Addl. Collector himself was without jurisdiction, therefore, the impugned orders are required to be quashed and set aside.
(3). In support of his above submission, Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the Judgment of this Court in case of the State of Rajasthan vs. Gamer Dan & Anr. (1). He also submitted that it was not open to the Board of Revenue to exercise its power under Sec. 9 read with Sec. 84 of the Act of 1956.
(4). As against that, Sh. C.L. Jain, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the Board of Revenue has rightly exercised its jurisdiction.
(5). Under the circumstances, if the Board of Revenue has exercised its jurisdiction after 35 years, then only on this ground of delay this court cannot interfere.
(6). Having considered the material on record of the case and the fact that except these four cases, no reference was made against remaining village people, there appears to be lot of substance in the submission of learned counsel Sh. Sharma that Addl. Collector has no jurisdiction to make reference before the Board of Revenue after so many years. It has been held by this court in Gamer Dan’s case (supra) that reference cannot be made for cancellation of the order passed by Authorised Officer in the proceedings initiated under the Act and the Authorised Officer is not subordinate to the Collector, therefore, reference made by the Addl. Collector was not competent.
(7). It appears from the impugned orders passed by Board of Revenue that with a view to circumvent the law, it had exercised the jurisdiction under Sec. 9 read with Sec. 84 of the Act which in my opinion is not permissible on the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case.
(8). In view of the above discussion, these petitions are allowed. Impugned orders passed in all these petitions are hereby quashed and set aside. Stay petitions also stand disposed of.