Nandram vs Kalulal
2021 Latest Caselaw 17509 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16083/2021

1. Nandram S/o Shri Rooplal, Aged About 70 Years, By Caste Gadari, R/o Segwa, Tehsil And District Chittorgarh (Raj.).

2. Lrs Of Narulal, Through

3. Prakash S/o Late Narulal, Aged About 24 Years, By Caste Gadari, R/o Segwa, Tehsil And District Chittorgarh (Raj.).

4. Ratanlal S/o Shri Rooplal, Aged About 55 Years, By Caste Gadari, R/o Segwa, Tehsil And District Chittorgarh (Raj.).

----Petitioners Versus

1. Kalulal S/o Shri Hajari, By Caste Bheel, R/o Segwa, Tehsil And District Chittorgarh (Raj.).

2. Udailal S/o Shri Hajari, By Caste Bheel, R/o Segwa, Tehsil And District Chittorgarh (Raj.).

3. Chatru S/o Shri Hajari, By Caste Bheel, R/o Segwa, Tehsil And District Chittorgarh (Raj.).

4. Shambulal S/o Shri Hajari, By Caste Bheel, R/o Segwa, Tehsil And District Chittorgarh (Raj.).

5. Bhanwarlal S/o Shri Sohanlal, By Caste Bheel, R/o Segwa, Tehsil And District Chittorgarh (Raj.).

6. Shraju S/o Shri Sohanlal, By Caste Bheel, R/o Segwa, Tehsil And District Chittorgarh (Raj.).

7. Devli S/o Shri Sohanlal, By Caste Bheel, R/o Segwa, Tehsil And District Chittorgarh (Raj.).

8. Chhaganlal S/o Shri Sohanlal, By Caste Bheel, R/o Segwa, Tehsil And District Chittorgarh (Raj.).

9. Mona S/o Shri Onkar, By Caste Bheel, R/o Segwa, Tehsil And District Chittorgarh (Raj.).

10. Deva S/o Shri Onkar, By Caste Bheel, R/o Segwa, Tehsil And District Chittorgarh (Raj.).

11. Shiva S/o Shri Onkar, By Caste Bheel, R/o Segwa, Tehsil And District Chittorgarh (Raj.).

12. Kailash S/o Shri Onkar, By Caste Bheel, R/o Segwa, Tehsil And District Chittorgarh (Raj.).

13. Keshu S/o Shri Onkar, By Caste Bheel, R/o Segwa, Tehsil And District Chittorgarh (Raj.).

                                            (2 of 3)                     [CW-16083/2021]


14.     State    Of   Rajasthan,         Through        The        District    Collector,
        Chittorgarh (Raj.).

15. The Tehsildar, Chittorgarh (Raj.).

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Surendra Thanvi

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Order

23/11/2021

1. While asserting that the petitioners are having possession of

the subject land since settlement, learned counsel for the

petitioners submits that plaintiffs Sohanlal and Hazarilal had

instituted a suit before Assistant Collector, Chittorgarh

(hereinafter referred to as 'the trial Court') for declaration of the

khatedari rights on the basis of allotment made in favour of their

mother Gulab Bai, however, without making any reference to the

allotment letter.

2. While pointing out that neither any copy of the allotment

order was placed on record nor particulars thereof were given in

the plaint, learned counsel for petitioners submits that the factum

of allotment order has only been brought to the notice of the trial

Court for the first time in the affidavit filed by Sohanlal dated

14.10.2009 and yet, the trial Court has decreed the suit filed by

the plaintiff, on the basis of allotment though no order was

available on record.

3. It is argued that the above order has been passed without

impleading the petitioners who are having possession over the

subject land.

(3 of 3) [CW-16083/2021]

4. Learned counsel further submits that against the judgment

and decree passed by the trial Court on 08.04.2010, the

petitioners had preferred an appeal while seeking leave to appeal,

however, the same had been rejected by the Revenue Appellate

Authority vide its order dated 14.10.2020 observing, inter alia,

that the petitioners were not a party to the suit proceedings.

5. The same order has been affirmed by the Board of Revenue,

Ajmer, vide its order dated 30.09.2021.

6. Inviting Court's attention towards memo of appeal,

particularly page No.55, learned counsel for the petitioners

submits that the appeal filed by the petitioners was not an appeal

simplicitor, rather a leave to file appeal was also sought and

therefore, the Revenue Appellate Authority so also the Board of

Revenue were required to decide the petitioners' right in light of

the fact that petitioners' had sought leave to file appeal against

the order passed by the trial Court.

7. Matter requires consideration.

8. Issue notice. Issue notice of stay application also, returnable

within six weeks.

9. Meanwhile, status quo in relation to possession and title of

the land in question shall be maintained.

(DINESH MEHTA),J 49-Amar/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)