Monday, 11, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Sobhagmal Sakhlecha vs B O R And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 3024 Raj/2

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 3024 Raj/2
Judgement Date : 20 July, 2021

Rajasthan High Court
Sobhagmal Sakhlecha vs B O R And Ors on 20 July, 2021
Bench: Prakash Gupta
      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

               S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8986/2012

Sobhagmal Sakhlecha Son Of Late Shri Mangalchandji, Aged
about 67 years, R/o Lakhan Kotri, Ajmer
                                                                     ----Petitioner
                                     Versus
1.     Board Of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer
2.     Shri Abhaymal Son Of Late Shri Mangalchand, R/o Rishab
       Sadan, Opp. Ram Bhawan, Lohagate Road, Ajmer
3.     Shri Jeetmal Son Of Late Shri Mangalchand, M-24, Link
       Road,        Ajmer       (since         deceased)          through    legal
       representatives:-
       3/1. Kirti Sakhlecha (son)
       3/2. Kishore Sakhlecha (son)
       3/3. Shakuntala Mehta (daughter)
       3/4. Kusum Jain (daughter)
       All residents of M-24, Link Road, Ajmer
4.     Shri Jaiwantmal Son Of Late Shri Mangalchand (since
       deceased) Through Legal Representatives:-
       4/1. Shri Rajender Oswal Son Of Late Shri Jaiwantmal
       4/2. Shri Mukesh Oswal Son Of Late Shri Jaiwantmal
       4/3. Smt. Chitra Jain Daughter Of Late Shri Jaiwantmal,
       All Residents Of M-24, Link Road, Ajmer
5.     State Of Rajasthan Through Tehsildar, Ajmer
                                                                  ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amit Jindal, Advocate with Ms. Neetu Bhansali, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. OP Mishra, Advocate

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH GUPTA

Order

20/07/2021

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner

against the order dated 22.2.2012 passed by the Board of

(2 of 3) [CW-8986/2012]

Revenue in Review Petition No. Review/LR/963/2012/Ajmer, by

which the review petition has been allowed and the judgment

dated 9.2.2009 passed by the Board of Revenue has been set-

aside.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner filed a revision petition before Board of Revenue, Ajmer

challenging the order dated 4.4.2001 passed by the Revenue

Appellate Authority, Ajmer, whereby the Revenue Appellate

Authority rejected the review petition filed by the petitioner and

others on the ground of delay. The Board of Revenue vide its order

dated 9.1.2009 allowed the revision petition and the order dated

4.4.2001 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority was quashed

and set-aside. Subsequently after 3 years from the date of passing

the order dated 9.1.2009, the respondent no.2 filed a review

petition under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC readwith Section 114 CPC and

Section 86 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act before the Board of

Revenue. Alongwith the review petition, the respondent no.2 also

filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. He

further submits that the statutory period for filing the review

petition is 30 days, but the review petition was filed after more

than 3 years. Without issuing notice and without deciding the

application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the Board of

Revenue allowed the review petition arbitrarily vide order dated

22.2.2012.

Heard. Considered.

From a perusal of the order dated 22.2.2012 passed by

the Board of Revenue in Review Petition, it is clear that the review

was sought of the order dated 9.2.2009. The petitioner was a

party to the review petition, but without issuing notice to him,

(3 of 3) [CW-8986/2012]

without any opportunity of hearing and without deciding the

application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the review

petition was decided. In this view of the matter, the Board of

Revenue is found to have committed an illegality while passing the

order dated 22.2.2012.

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of

the case, the impugned order dated 22.2.2012 is quashed and

set-aside. The matter is remanded to the Board of Revenue with a

direction to decide the review petition afresh on its own merits

without being influenced by its previous order dated 22.2.2012,

after giving opportunity to the parties concerned and after

deciding the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

Both the parties are directed to appear before the

Board of Revenue in this regard on 2.8.2021.

The writ petitions stand disposed of accordingly.

Consequent upon the disposal of the writ petition, stay

application also stands disposed of.

(PRAKASH GUPTA), J.

DILIP KHANDELWAL /11

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter