Rajasthan HC Division Bench Restores Board of Revenue Order, Holds Beri Commission Report Cannot Reopen Finally Decided ST Land Transfer Dispute

A Rajasthan High Court Division Bench set aside a Single Judge remand, ruling that a Commission of Inquiry report cannot revive a land dispute settled by a revenue court in 1978.

The Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Bipin Gupta at the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur, has allowed a special appeal filed by M/s Sanskar Land Developers Pvt. Ltd. and quashed a Single Judge order that had remanded a Scheduled Tribe land transfer dispute back to the Board of Revenue for fresh adjudication. The bench held that the State could not use the report of the Beri Commission — a fact-finding body constituted under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 — to reopen a matter that had been conclusively decided against it by a competent revenue court as far back as 28 March 1978. The order dated 3 May 2019 passed by the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer, rejecting the State's reference on grounds of a 34-year delay, stands restored. The bench also directed revenue authorities to mutate the land in question in the name of Jaipur Development Authority within a fortnight.

The Land, the 1961 Transfers, and the First Round of Litigation

The dispute centres on four khasra numbers — Khasra No. 37 (10 Bigha 4 Biswa), Khasra No. 42 (13 Bigha 1 Biswa), Khasra No. 34/480 (1 Bigha 10 Biswa), and Khasra No. 115 (7 Bigha 15 Biswa) — totalling 32 Bigha 10 Biswa at Village Meenawala, Tehsil Jaipur. The original khatedars — Bhagwan, Ramchandra, Laduram, Chanda, and Bhorya — all belonged to the Meena community, notified as a Scheduled Tribe.

By a sale deed executed on 17 July 1961 and registered on 12 September 1961, these khatedars transferred the land to Prabhu Narayan Bagra, a person belonging to the General Category. Mutation Nos. 14 and 15 were opened in Bagra's name on 21 August 1963. Within roughly three months of acquiring khatedari rights, Bagra further transferred the land to Krishna Gopal Rungta through a registered sale deed dated 4 December 1961.

In 1974, the State Government acquired Khasra No. 115 (7 Bigha 15 Biswa) and Khasra No. 42/481 for RIICO, with both mutated in RIICO's name vide Mutation No. 77 on 3 September 1977.

The State itself moved first. Through the Tehsildar, it initiated proceedings under Section 175 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, alleging the 1961 transfers violated Section 42 of that Act. Those proceedings, registered as Case No. 120/1977 (State of Rajasthan v. Prabhu Narayan), were dismissed on 28 March 1978 on the ground of limitation — the applicable limitation period then being 12 years. The State did not challenge that order. It attained finality.

The State's Second Attempt: Section 82 Reference and the Beri Commission

Nearly 17 years later, in 1995, the State moved an application under Section 82 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, seeking a reference to the Board of Revenue. That application was allowed on 5 October 2001 and the matter was transmitted to the Board of Revenue with directions to the parties to appear on 6 December 2001.

During the reference proceedings, Sudhir Khetan — who had been allotted Khasra No. 115 and Khasra No. 42/481 by RIICO and held lease deeds — was impleaded as a party on 21 March 2014. He then applied for exclusion of those two khasra numbers from the reference on the ground that the land had been converted for industrial purposes and had ceased to be “agricultural land” within Section 5(24) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. That application was accepted on 15 January 2015, and Khasra No. 115 was excluded from the reference proceedings.

The appellant, M/s Sanskar Land Developers Pvt. Ltd., had purchased part of the land through a registered sale deed dated 23 April 2003. On learning of the pending reference, it sought and obtained impleadment as a respondent in those proceedings.

In the meantime, the State had constituted the Beri Commission, headed by Justice B.P. Beri, to enquire into illegal transfers of land belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The Commission, after its inquiry, found the 1961 sale deed in favour of Bagra void, treated both Bagra and Rungta as trespassers, and recommended resumption of the land by the State. Acting on this report, the Tehsildar made a reference before the Board of Revenue seeking cancellation of mutation entries in the names of Bagra and Rungta.

The Board of Revenue, after hearing the matter on merits, rejected the reference on 3 May 2019, primarily on the ground of approximately 34 years of delay.

The Single Judge's Remand and the Challenge Before the Division Bench

The State challenged the Board of Revenue's order before the High Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4760/2020. The learned Single Judge, vide judgment dated 30 April 2025, allowed the writ petition, quashed the Board of Revenue's order dated 3 May 2019, and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication — directing the Board to reconsider the matter in light of the Beri Commission report and the documentary evidence on record.

M/s Sanskar Land Developers filed D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 631/2025 challenging that remand.

Before the Division Bench, counsel for the appellant argued that the Single Judge had erred in relying on the Beri Commission report. The Commission was a fact-finding body whose findings carry no evidentiary value and are not binding on courts. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court's decisions in R. Venkatkrishnan v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2009) 11 SCC 737, and State Bank of India v. National Housing Bank, (2013) 16 SCC 538, for the proposition that findings of commissions constituted under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, are not enforceable proprio vigore and statements made before such commissions are inadmissible in subsequent proceedings.

The appellant further argued that the proceedings under Section 175 of the Act of 1955 had already been dismissed in 1978 and that order had attained finality. The State could not be permitted to re-agitate the same issue through a fresh reference founded on the Beri Commission report. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court's decisions in Ram Karan (Dead) through LRs v. State of Rajasthan, (2014) 8 SCC 282, and Nathu Ram (Dead) by LRs v. State of Rajasthan, (2004) 13 SCC 585, for the principle that even where no limitation is prescribed, statutory powers cannot be exercised after unreasonable delay. The Rajasthan High Court's own decisions in Bhagwan Sahay v. State Government, 2019 SCC OnLine Raj 7800 (reference after 41 years not sustainable), and Anandi Lal v. State of Rajasthan, (1996) 2 WLC 36 (Raj.) (reference after 35 years quashed), were also cited.

The State, in response, contended that Section 42 of the Act of 1955 renders any transfer by a Scheduled Tribe member to a non-Scheduled Tribe person void ab initio. Since the original transaction was void, no right, title, or interest could ever have accrued in favour of Bagra or any subsequent purchaser. Limitation principles, the State argued, cannot be applied mechanically to perpetuate an illegality or validate a void transaction. The Beri Commission's findings, it was submitted, correctly identified the transfers as void and the Single Judge had rightly interfered with the Board of Revenue's order.

How the Division Bench Reasoned

The bench began by setting out the text of Section 42 and Section 175 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. Section 42 renders void any sale, gift, or bequest by a Scheduled Tribe khatedar in favour of a person who is not a member of the Scheduled Tribe. Section 175 provides for ejectment proceedings where a tenant transfers a holding in contravention of the Act.

The bench then identified what it considered the central infirmity in the State's approach. The proceedings under Section 175 had already been dismissed in 1978 on limitation grounds. That order was never challenged. It attained finality. The State then constituted the Beri Commission — not pursuant to any court direction — and used its report as the foundation for a fresh reference to the Board of Revenue. The bench found this sequence troubling.

On the Beri Commission report, the bench applied the Supreme Court's reasoning in R. Venkatkrishnan and State Bank of India v. National Housing Bank directly. A commission constituted under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, is a fact-finding body. Its report is not a judgment. Its findings are not enforceable proprio vigore. Statements made before it are inadmissible in subsequent civil or criminal proceedings. Courts are not bound by its conclusions.

The bench went further. It invoked the maxim quando aliquid prohibetur, prohibetur et omne per quod devenitur ad illud — what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly. The State had failed to challenge the 1978 order. It could not now use the Beri Commission report as an indirect route to reopen what had been finally decided. The bench observed that the Beri Commission appeared to have acted as an adjudicating authority without any court direction authorising it to examine a matter already decided by the Board of Revenue.

On the question of finality, the bench quoted at length from the Supreme Court's decision in Satydhan Ghosal v. Deorajin Dabi, (1960) 3 SCR 590, on the principle of res judicata: “once a res is judicata, it shall not be adjudged again.” The bench held that once the 1978 order attained finality, there was no occasion to re-adjudicate the same issue through a fresh reference based on the Beri Commission report.

The bench also relied on the Supreme Court's recent decision in Suvej Singh v. Ram Naresh and Ors., 2025 INSC 1405, where the Court had held that unnecessary remands by higher courts generate fresh rounds of litigation and should be avoided. The Supreme Court had observed in that case that the idea is to curtail litigation, not generate it.

The bench noted an additional factual development: the land in question had already been converted for non-agricultural use vide order dated 17 January 2023 under Section 90-A of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, and had subsequently vested in or been transferred to the Jaipur Development Authority for development purposes. Continuing disputed revenue entries in these circumstances would serve no useful purpose. The bench directed that revenue entries be brought in conformity with the changed legal and factual position.

Order

The Division Bench allowed D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 631/2025. The judgment dated 30 April 2025 passed by the learned Single Judge is quashed and set aside. The order dated 3 May 2019 passed by the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer, rejecting the State's reference, is restored.

The respondent revenue authorities are directed to undertake all consequential revenue proceedings and open or mutate the revenue entries pertaining to the land in question in the name of Jaipur Development Authority within a fortnight from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment.

Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

The judgment was pronounced on 9 June 2026. Arguments had concluded and the judgment was reserved on 8 May 2026.