Champa Lal And Ors vs B O R And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 792 Raj/2

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

       D.B. Civil Special Appeal Writ No. 1019/2008

                                       In

           S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10260/2007

1.     Champa Lal aged 64 years Son Of Shri Nand Ram, R/o
       Village     Khandip        Tehsil       Gangapur          City,   District
       Sawaimadhopur.
2.     Ashok Son Of Shri Sohanlal aged 40 years, R/o Ashok
       Nagar, Udaipur, Through His Power Of Attorney, Shri
       Champa Lal Son Of Shri Nand Ram, Resident Of Khandip,
       Tehsil Gangapur City, District Sawaimadhopur.
                                                                  ----Appellants
                                   Versus
1.     The Board Of Revenue For Rajasthan, Ajmer
2.     Ramcharan
3.     Jagram
4.     Megh Ram
5.     Heera Lal,
       (From Respondents No. 2 To 5 All Sons Of Moolya, All

Residents Of Village Khandip, Tehsil Gangapur City, District Sawaimadhopur).

6. State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar, Gangapur City, District Sawaimadhopur.

----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sanjay Mehrishi, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Khizer Iqbal Khan, Advocate

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR VYAS

Judgment / Order

27/01/2021

(2 of 3) [SAW-1019/2008]

Appellants have filed the appeal challenging the order dated

20.12.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby, writ

petition filed by the appellants, was dismissed.

Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the

parties are closely related to each other and partition proceedings

are pending before the Revenue Court. During the pendency of the

proceedings, an application was moved by the appellants seeking

police help for protection of their property. The said application

was allowed subject to deposit of Rs.2,000/-. However, later the

application was withdrawn by the appellants alleging that no police

help was required. On 2.7.2001, an application was moved by the

private respondents seeking correction of the order dated

28.06.2001, whereby, appellants were directed to deposit

Rs.2,000/- every year. However, without issuing any notice to the

appellants, the application was allowed and the order dated

28.06.2001 was modified by the Deputy Collector, Gangapur City

vide order dated 3.7.2001. No opportunity of hearing was afforded

to the appellants.

Learned counsel for the private respondents has submitted

that so far as the order dated 3.7.2001 is concerned, revision

petition was filed by the appellants. So far as the present writ

petition is concerned, the order under challenge is dated

28.06.2001. The order dated 28.06.2001 passed by the Deputy

Collector is just and fair. Appellants are in possession of the land-

in-question and are required to deposit Rs.2,000/- by way of

security every year as they are using the land-in-question. It has

been clarified that the amount deposited by the appellants would

go to the party in whose favour the case is decided.

(3 of 3) [SAW-1019/2008]

We have carefully gone through the order passed by the

Deputy Collector dated 28.06.2001. Learned Single Judge rightly

held that, although, order was passed with a view to provide

police assistance to the appellants and deposit cash security, but

the intention while passing the order was clarified from its

concluding part where it has been mentioned that the appellants

would deposit Rs.2,000/- per year by way of security and the said

amount would be paid to the party that ultimately succeeds. So

far as the validity of the order dated 3.7.2001 is concerned, the

said order was challenged by way of a revision petition filed by the

appellants. Learned counsel for the parties have failed to clarify as

to whether the said revision petition has been disposed of till date

or not.

Since, the appellants are in possession of the property-in-

question, the order passed by the Revenue Court to the effect that

the appellants should deposit Rs.2,000/- per year by way of

security and the said amount would be later disbursed to the

parties should ultimately succeed before the Deputy Collector is

just and fair and calls for no interference.

Dismissed.

                                    (MANOJ KUMAR VYAS),J                                           (SABINA),J

                                   Mohita /32









Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)