Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Bhim Singh vs The State Of Rajasthan on 4 August, 2021
Bench: Vijay Bishnoi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9760/2021
1. Bhim Singh S/o Shri Sardul Singh, Aged About 55 Years,
By Caste Rajput, Resident Of Ratusar, Tehsil Nohar
District Hanumangarh.
2. Ranveer Singh S/o Shri Sardul Singh, Aged About 50
Years, By Caste Rajput, Resident Of Ratusar, Tehsil Nohar
District Hanumangarh.
3. Kamla W/o Shri Sardul Singh, Aged About 80 Years, By
Caste Rajput, Resident Of Ratusar, Tehsil Nohar District
Hanumangarh.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar, Nohar District
Hanumangarh.
2. Board Of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer Through Registrar.
3. Revenue Appellate Authority, Hanumangarh Camp Nohar
District Hanumangarh.
4. Sub Divisional Officer, Nohar District Hanumangarh
5. Bhupendra Singh S/o Late Devi Singh, Resident Of
Ratusar, Tehsil Nohar District Hanumangarh.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. RS Choudhary
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
Judgment / Order
04/08/2021
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that father
of respondent No.5 has filed a suit in the court of Asstt. Collector-
cum-SDO, Nohar against the petitioners for declaration and
partition of the land, which came to be dismissed by the Asstt.
Collector-cum-SDO, Nohar vide order dated 30.04.2010. After
(2 of 3) [CW-9760/2021]
death of father of the respondent No.5 Devi Singh, respondent
No.5 preferred first appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority
(for short 'RAA'), Hanumangarh Camp Nohar under Section 233 of
the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 challenging the judgment and
decree dated 30.04.2010 passed by the Asstt. Collector-cum-SDO,
Nohar. In the said appeal, the RAA by way of order dated
09.01.2018 has directed the parties to maintain status quo with
respect to the land in question. Later on, the respondent No.5 has
moved an application before the RAA with the prayer for
withdrawing the appeal as he wants to sell his share of land due to
some financial crisis. The RAA has allowed the said application and
the first appeal preferred on behalf of respondent No.5 came to be
dismissed as withdrawn on 09.09.2020. Thereafter, the
respondent No.5 has sold his part of share of land to one Smt.
Jeta and sale deed in respect of the same was registered on
10.09.2020.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted
that strangely on 12.10.2020, the respondent No.5 has preferred
a revision petition before the Board of Revenue with the prayer for
setting aside the order dated 09.09.2020 passed by the RAA,
Hanumangarh contending that as he became unemployed during
the lock-down and lost his mental balance, he has withdrawn the
first appeal before the RAA inadvertently, therefore, the order of
dismissal of the first appeal as withdrawn passed by the RAA
dated 09.09.2020 be set aside.
It is further submitted that strangely, the Board of Revenue
without issuing notices to the petitioners has allowed the said
revision petition vide order dated 15.10.2020 and set aside the
order dated 09.09.2020 passed by the RAA. It is, therefore,
(3 of 3) [CW-9760/2021]
submitted that the order dated 15.10.2020 passed by Board of
Revenue is absolutely illegal.
Issue notice. Issue notice of stay petition as well.
In the meanwhile, effect and operation of order dated
15.10.2020 (Annex.-10) passed by the Board of Revenue in
Revision/TA/3832/2020/ Hanumangarh shall remain stayed.
(VIJAY BISHNOI),J
Surabhii/38-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
