Gula Ram vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 16565 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15272/2021

1. Gula Ram S/o Kheta Ram Ji, Aged About 70 Years, R/o 571, Bera Riya, Beejowa, Tehsil- Rani, District- Pali.

2. Narayan Lal S/o Shri Kheta Ram Ji, Aged About 62 Years, R/o 571, Bera Riya, Beejowa, Tehsil- Rani, District- Pali.

3. Pyari Bai W/o Haka Ram Kheta Ram Ji, Aged About 60 Years, R/o 571, Bera Riya, Beejowa, Tehsil- Rani, District- Pali.

4. Pukh Raj Choudhary S/o Shri Kheta Ram Ji, Aged About 58 Years, R/o 571, Bera Riya, Beejowa, Tehsil- Rani, District- Pali.

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar, Tehsil- Rani, District- Pali.

2. Nenaram S/o Khima Ji, B/c Sirvi, R/o Bijowa, Tehsil- Rani, District- Pali.

3. Revenue Appellate Authority (Raa), Pali (Raj.).

4. Assistant Collector Cum S.d.o., Rani, Pali.

                                                                ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)        :     Mr. Rajesh Shah
For Respondent(s)        :     -



                     JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

                                   Judgment

08/11/2021

1. By way of present writ petition, petitioners have challenged

summons (Annex.8) issued by the Revenue Appellate Authority.

2. Learned counsel argued that since the Sub Divisional Officer

has passed a reasoned and valid order, that too in furtherance of

the order dated 26.12.2019 passed by the Board of Revenue,

(2 of 2) [CW-15272/2021]

hence, the Revenue Appellate Authority ought not to have issued

summons to the petitioners.

3. Heard and perused.

4. Upon perusal of the summons (Annex.8), this Court finds

that the same has been issued in connection with an appeal filed

by the respondents.

5. The petitioners have challenged the summons (Annex.8) not

on the ground of jurisdiction but only on the ground that the order

of the Sub Divisional Officer dated 19.02.2021 is in conformity

with the directions given by the Board of Revenue.

6. It is not the case of the petitioners that appeal against the

order of the SDO is not maintainable before the Revenue Appellate

Authority.

7. The petitioner is required to file response/reply before the

Revenue Appellate Authority and contest the appeal in accordance

with law.

8. The present writ petition is misconceived. The same is,

therefore, dismissed.

9. The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.

(DINESH MEHTA),J 71-Rahul/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)