Rajasthan High Court
Ganpat And Ors vs Mangla Ram Andors on 10 December, 2021
Bench: Akil Kureshi, Uma Shanker Vyas
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 147/2010
1. Ganpat Son Of Bishna Ram (Since Deceased)
1/1. Sheesh Ram S/o Ganpat,
1/2. Hari Ram S/o Ganpat
1/3. Gomati Devi Widow of Ganpat
2. Rameshwar Son Of Baluram
3. Sajjan Singh Son Of Bishna Ram
4. Ram Karan Son Of Baluram Deceased Through Lrs:-
4/1. Smt. Mohari Devi widwo of Ram Karan
4/2. Hari Ram S/o Ram Karan
4/3. Sri Ram S/o Ram Karan
5. Sugna Ram Son Of Bishna Ram, all residents of Village
Raghunathpura, Tehsil And District Jhunjhunu
----Appellants
Versus
1. Manglaram Son Of Chandaram Deceased Through Lrs:-
1/1. Gugan Ram S/o Mangala Ram
1/2. Mohar Singh S/o Mangla Ram
1/3. Jai Singh S/o Mangla Ram
2. Jagan Singh Son Of Gopal, residents of Raghunathpura,
Tehsil And District Jhunjhunu
3. The Gram Panchayat, Raghunathpura, Tehsil And District
Jhunjhunu
4. The Board Of Revenue For Rajasthan, Ajmer
5. The Revenue Appellate Authority-Ii, Jaipur
6. The Assistant Collector, Jhunjhunu
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Ms. Anita Agarwal with
Mr. Laxmi Kant
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS
Order
(2 of 3) [SAW-147/2010]
10/12/2021
This appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned
Single Judge dated 04/02/2009 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.1216/1981. The facts are somewhat peculiar. After the writ
petition was filed in the year 1981, it was noticed that petitioner
Mangla Ram expired in the year 1983 but no application for
bringing the legal representatives on record was filed till 1988.
After filing such application also, there was considerable delay in
seeking condonation in pursuing such application. Such application
was dismissed by the learned Single on 24/07/1997. This order
was challenged in Special Appeal (Writ) No.731/1998. The Division
Bench vide order dated 07/02/2008 remanded the case before the
learned Single Judge for fresh consideration. The Single Bench
once again dismissed the application for bringing legal heirs on
record vide order dated 04/02/2009 upon which this fresh appeal
was filed.
It can thus be seen that a small question of bringing legal
representatives of the deceased petitioner on record has remained
pending since nearly 20 years after his death and the question of
merit in the writ petition have been quite completely sidetracked.
We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. We are
prepared to accept that taking liberal standards for bringing legal
heirs of the deceased litigant on record, the learned Single Judge
could perhaps have entertained the application for such purpose.
We are therefore prepared to allow the appeal to that extent and
bring legal heirs of deceased on record after condoning delay.
However, in view of the fact that the issues are more than two
decades old and the writ petition itself was filed in the year 1981,
we have heard learned counsel for the appellant on merits of the
(3 of 3) [SAW-147/2010]
matter also. Writ petition is placed before this Court for such
purpose. We have perused the orders challenged in the writ
petition and find that concurrently on facts the revenue appellate
authority and the Board of Revenue have come to the conclusion
that there is no evidence of a better road to the fields of the
respondent No.1. such findings are not shown to be perverse.
No interference is called for.
The appeal is allowed. The writ petition is heard on merit and
is dismissed.
(UMA SHANKER VYAS),J (AKIL KURESHI),CJ
Anil Goyal/B.M. Gandhi-11
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
