Lrs Of Kartar Singh vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 18810 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Misc (Writ) Second Stay Application No. 15766/2021

in

D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.751/2009

Kartar Singh, S/o Shri Jawahar Singh (Since Deceased), Through His Legal Heirs

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar (Revenue), Sriganganagar & Ors.

----Respondent Connected With

D.B. Civil Misc(Writ) Second Stay Application No. 15708/2021

in

D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 793/2009 Kartar Singh, S/o Shri Jawahar Singh (Since Deceased), Through His Legal Heirs

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar (Revenue), Sriganganagar & Ors.

                                                                ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)        :     Mr. Manoj Bhandari
                               Mr. Hemant Kumar Jain
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. Vikas Balia
                               Mr. Dharmendra Surana



           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

                                    Order

10/12/2021





                                           (2 of 5)                    [CMS-15766/2021]

The matter comes up for orders on second stay

applications preferred by the appellants.

We have heard and considered the submissions

advanced by the appellants asserting inter alia that the disputed

lands, which are subject matter of this litigation, have been sold to

the private respondents and that this endeavour of the original

land owners, who are aware of the factum of the pendency of the

appeals, amounts to fraud and thus, these sale deeds deserved to

be stayed.

Mr. Manoj Bhandari and Mr. Hemant Kumar Jain,

learned counsel representing the appellant-applicants, vehemently

and fervently urged that the appellants are in possession of the

lands in question and as such the attempt of the private

respondents in trying to oust the appellants from possession in the

garb of the questioned sale deeds, which are void ab initio,

deserve to be stayed. It is also prayed that stringent disciplinary

action be directed against the respondent No.2 Tehsildar

(Revenue), Sri Ganganagar and the respondent No.3 Sub

Divisional Magistrate Sri Ganganagar for registering the sale

deeds. In support of his contention, Mr. Bhandari placed reliance

on the following judgments :-

(1) Sanjay Verma Vs. Manik Roy & Ors. [AIR 2007 SC 1332]

(2) Pranakrushna Vs. Umakanta Panda [AIR 1989 Ori 148]

(3) Hardeva Vs. Ismail [AIR 1970 Raj 167]

(4) Smt. Renuka Vs. State of Rajasthan [D.B. Civil Special Appeal

(Writ) No.564/2021 decided on 18.10.2021 by Division Bench of

Rajasthan High Court]

Per contra, Mr. Vikas Balia and Mr. Dharmesh Surana,

learned counsel representing the respondents (land owners) have

(3 of 5) [CMS-15766/2021]

pointed out that the learned Single Bench, allowed Writ Petition

No.6647/2005 filed by the respondents Surendra Singh & Ors. and

dismissed the writ petitions preferred by Shri Kartar Singh (now

represented by his LRs in these appeals) by making strong

observations against the conduct of Shri Kartar Singh The SDO

was directed to take up the execution of the final decree dated

04.01.1994 and to conclude the execution proceedings. It was

also directed that the question of usufruct and mesne profit to the

opposite parties shall also be taken up. A cost of Rs.50,000/-

each was imposed upon the petitioner Kartar Singh in all the three

writ petitions.

The first stay applications filed by the appellants in

these appeals were dismissed by this court by a detailed order

dated 10.01.2011, wherein only the direction for recovery from

the appellants in respect of usufruct and mesne profit was stayed,

whereas the prayer of the appellants for grant of interim relief

regarding the lands in question was outrightly turned down.

Mr. Balia submits that the appellants intentionally did

not implead the original land owners as party respondents in the

second stay applications. The learned Single Bench held that the

conduct of the appellant Kartar Singh was unfair and the factum of

imposition of cost of Rs.50,000/- upon him clearly indicates that

he does not deserve any relief. It was further submitted that even

the appeals are liable to be dismissed because the cost imposed

by the learned Single Bench has still not been deposited till date.

On these grounds, Mr. Balia sought dismissal of the appeals.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the

submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the material

available on record. Suffice it to say that the issue regarding sale

(4 of 5) [CMS-15766/2021]

of property pendente lite and effect thereof on the rights of the

parties concerned would have to be addressed when the appeals

are being finally decided. However, the fact remains that this

court, while accepting the writ petition of the respondents and

rejecting the three writ petitions filed by Shri Kartar Singh made

strong observations against his conduct so much so that the court

was persuaded to impose heavy cost of Rs.50,000/- upon Shri

Kartar Singh. The first stay applications preferred by the

appellants herein being the LRs of Shri Kartar Singh were

dismissed by this court by a detailed order dated 10.01.2011,

which is reproduced hereinbelow for the sake of ready reference :-

"Heard on the application made by appellant for grant of stay.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and on perusal of record of the case, we are inclined to dispose of the stay application made by appellant with a direction to the parties that no recovery shall be made from the appellant in respect of usufruct and mesne profit either by sale of land in question or otherwise during pendency of this appeal in respect of land in question pursuant to direction given by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order as per direction no.C(ii).

So far as all other reliefs as claimed by the appellant in relation to land in question are concerned, we are not inclined to grant them to the appellant in respect of subject matter of the land in question.

We, however, make it clear that both the learned counsel appearing for the parties made extensive submissions so also cited several authorities in support of their contentions. In our view, while disposing of the stay application, we do not consider it

(5 of 5) [CMS-15766/2021]

necessary to deal with these submissions nor we consider it necessary to refer to authorities at this stage. We also make it clear that this order shall be subject to result of this appeal.

Subject to aforesaid, the stay application stands accordingly disposed of."

Manifestly, as the Division Bench, while dismissing the

first stay applications has made it clear that the appellants are not

entitled to any interim in relation to the lands in question, we are

of the firm opinion that the appellant cannot raise any grievance

whatsoever to the transfer of the land by the original owners to

the private respondents herein. The effect of the sale pendente

lite would be considered when the appeals are finally heard.

However, for the present, we are of the firm opinion that the

appellants herein are not entitled of any relief whatsoever in these

second applications for stay, which are dismissed as being devoid

of merit.

                                   (SAMEER JAIN),J                                         (SANDEEP MEHTA),J


                                    1-Pramod/-









Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)