Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Shakti Dan vs Board Of Revenue, Ajmer on 3 August, 2021
Bench: Vijay Bishnoi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7176/2021
1. Shakti Dan S/o Thakar Dan, Aged About 70 Years, B/c
Charan, R/o Village Sangad, Tehsil Fatehgarh, District
Jaisalmer.
2. Lekh Dan S/o Thakar Dan, Aged About 64 Years, B/c
Charan, R/o Village Sangad, Tehsil Fatehgarh, District
Jaisalmer.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Board Of Revenue, Ajmer, Ajmer
2. Revenue Appellate Authority, District Barmer.
3. Assistant Collector Cum Sub Divisional Officer, Fatehgarh,
District Jaisalmer.
4. Tehsildar Fatehgarh, District Jaisalmer.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hemant Balani
For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.D. Bhadu
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
Order
03/08/2021
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners being
aggrieved with the order dated 18.03.2021 passed by the Board of
Revenue, Ajmer, whereby the second appeal preferred by the
petitioners against the order dated 25.04.2019 passed by the
Revenue Appellate Authority, Barmer (for short 'RAA') has been
dismissed.
Vide order dated 25.04.2019, the RAA has allowed the
appeal preferred by the State and set aside the judgment and
decree dated 04.04.2016 passed by the Assistant Collector Cum
(2 of 4) [CW-7176/2021]
Sub Divisional Officer, Fatehgarh, District Jaisalmer in revenue suit
No.94/2015.
Brief facts of the case are that father of the petitioners have
filed a revenue suit for declaration in the court of Assistant
Collector Cum Sub Divisional Officer, Fatehgarh, District Jaisalmer
under Sections 88, 89, 90, 91 and 92-A and 188 of the Rajasthan
Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter to be referred as the 'Act of 1955')
with a prayer for declaring him as Khatedar of lands, description of
which is given in the revenue suit. The Assistant Collector Cum
Sub Divisional Officer, Fatehgarh, District Jaisalmer vide judgment
and decree dated 04.04.2016 has accepted the revenue suit filed
by father of the petitioners and declared him as khatedar of 50.19
of land of Village Sangad falling in different khatedars. The State
of Rajasthan has preferred an appeal under Section 223 of the Act
of 1955 against the judgment and decree dated 04.04.2016 in the
court of RAA and the said court has accepted the said appeal and
set aside the judgment and decree dated 04.04.2016. The second
appeal preferred by the petitioners before the Board of Revenue
against the judgment dated 25.04.2019 passed by the RAA came
to be dismissed by the Board of Revenue vide order dated
18.03.2021, against which the petitioners have filed this writ
petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that RAA
has allowed the appeal filed by the State against the judgment
and decree dated 04.04.2016 on the ground that the Assistant
Collector Cum Sub Divisional Officer, Fatehgarh, District Jaisalmer
has committed several irregularities, such as he has not marked
the reply filed on behalf of the State and has also not signed the
order of framing issues. It is also pointed out that the affidavits of
(3 of 4) [CW-7176/2021]
witnesses have also not been marked and there is no remark of
presentation of the same. It is also pointed out that the Presiding
Officer has not signed the statements of the witnesses recorded
and there is no marking of presentation on the said affidavits.
Similar type of certain technical irregularities have also been
pointed out by the RAA.
The RAA is also of the opinion that Khasra numbers, in
which, the land claimed by father of the petitioners is falling
includes several co-khatedars, but those co-khatedars have not
been impleaded as party in the revenue suit. After observing
such alleged irregularities, the RAA has set aside the judgment
and decree dated 04.04.2016. The Board of Revenue has affirmed
the order passed by the RAA in a mechanical manner.
It is argued that even if the RAA as well as the Board of
Revenue have noted some technical irregularities in the judgment
and decree passed by the Assistant Collector Cum Sub Divisional
Officer, Fatehgarh, District Jaisalmer, the proper course for them is
to remand the matter for fresh adjudication. Learned counsel for
the petitioner has, therefore, submitted that in view of the above,
this writ petition may be allowed and the matter may be
remanded to the Assistant Collector Cum Sub Divisional Officer,
Fatehgarh, District Jaisalmer for fresh adjudication of the revenue
suit no.94/2015.
Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 4 has opposed
the writ petition, however, has not seriously opposed the prayer of
the petitioners to remand the matter to the Assistant Collector
Cum Sub Divisional Officer, Fatehgarh, District Jaisalmer for fresh
adjudication of the revenue suit No.94/2015.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(4 of 4) [CW-7176/2021]
It is true that RAA vide its judgment dated 25.04.2019 has
pointed out certain irregularities in the judgment and decree
passed by the Assistant Collector Cum Sub Divisional Officer,
Fatehgarh, District Jaisalmer, however, the proper course for the
RAA was to remand the matter for fresh adjudication to the said
authority after setting aside the judgment and decree dated
04.04.2016. The Board of Revenue has also not taken into
consideration this aspect of the matter, hence, this Court deems it
proper to dispose of the writ petition by remanding the matter to
Assistant Collector Cum Sub Divisional Officer, Fatehgarh, District
Jaisalmer while not interfering with the findings of the RAA as well
as the Board of Revenue of setting aside the judgment and decree
dated 04.04.2016 passed by it in revenue suit No.94/2015.
Hence, the matter is remanded to the Assistant Collector
Cum Sub Divisional Officer, Fatehgarh, District Jaisalmer for
deciding the original revenue suit No.94/2015 afresh, strictly in
accordance with law after providing opportunity of hearing to all
the parties concerned.
Ordered accordingly.
Stay petition is also stands disposed of.
(VIJAY BISHNOI),J
109-Taruna/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
