The Rajasthan High Court has set aside an order of a single judge that relied upon the report of a fact-finding Commission that was constituted by the State Government despite the fact that the concerned matter had already attained finality in 1978, opining such reliance to be erroneous.

The division bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Bipin Gupta further slammed the government for the act of constituting the concerned commission, and observed that once the concerned matter was dismissed by the Board of Revenue, the commission had no capacity to examine the case.

For context, the matter pertained to a land that originally belonged to the members of the Scheduled Tribe (ST) Community, and was transferred to an individual who belonged to the General category in 1961.

This sale was challenged by the state government alleging violation of Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (the “Act”) that prohibited such transfer. The challenge was dismissed in 1978 on the ground of limitation, and this order was not assailed by the government. Hence, it attained finality.

Despite this, the state government formed a commissioner named Beri Commission to inquire into the illegal transfers. As per the report submitting by the commission, the transfers were held to be void and without legal effects.

Thereafter, after a delay of 17 years, State moved an application in 1995, seeking reference of the matter to the Board of Revenue which was allowed. The Board of Revenue dismissed the reference which was challenged by the State before the Court. The single judge relied upon the finding of the Beri Commission and remanded the matter to the Board of Revenue.

This order of the single judge was appealed by the current owners of the lands, on the ground of exercise of reference/revisional jurisdiction after an inordinate delay.

It was argued that once the matter was finally adjudicated in 1978, the State could not be allowed to reignite it based on the Commission report.

On the contrary the State submitted that the principles of limitation and delay could not apply mechanically to perpetuate an illegality or validate a transaction which was void ab initio.

After hearing the contentions, the Court observed that the opinion of Beri Commission could not have been made a basis by the State to file a fresh reference in the Board of Revenue. Further, the Court opined that conclusion of the Commission could not have been relied upon by the single judge to adjudicate a dispute after 34 years.

“…we do not find as to under what capacity, the Beri Commission was examining the case of State of Rajasthan (supra), which stood already dismissed by the Board of Revenue. Neither the Beri Commission was formed by any direction of the High Court, nor it could have examined a judgment passed by the Board of Revenue where the application of the State had been rejected on the ground of limitation…Beri Commission has acted as an adjudicating authority without there being any such direction issued by any Court.”

The Court held that what could not be done directly, could not be done indirectly too, and the authority could not be allowed to raise an already adjudicated issue by utilizing some other sources. It was held that if such permission was granted, it would destabilize the entire judicial process.

Accordingly, the order was set aside.

Title: M/s Sanskar Land Developers Pvt. Ltd. v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 260

Click Here To Read/Download Order