Rajasthan High Court
Trust Mandir Shri Sitaram Ji, ... vs M/S Pink City Agro Industries ... on 5 October, 2021
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9492/2021
Trust Mandir Shri Sitaram Ji, Dayal Ji, Mata Ji, Village Sawai
Getor, Through Secretary/ Authorised Representative Gopal
Khadu R/o Village Sawai Getor, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. M/s Pink City Agro Industries Partnership Firm, Through
Dulheram Meena S/o Ramswaroop Meena, R/o Plot No.
17, Durga Vihar, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur.
2. Ramdayaldas, Chela Atmaram, Resident Of Kushal Nagar,
Sanganer, District Jaipur.
3. Smt. Anita Singh Kulhari W/o Jagdish Chandra Kulhari,
R/o D-666, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur City, Jaipur.
4. Khemchand Man S/o Dhansiram Man, Resident Of Village
Post Meer, Tehsil Khetri, District Jhunjhunu.
5. Smt. Shanti Devi W/o Durgadutt Kulhari, Resident Of
Village Post Kulhariyon Ki Dhani, Via Bisau, District
Jhunjhunu Presently Residing At D-666, Malviya Nagar,
Jaipur.
6. M/s Pink City Agro Industries Partnership Firm, Through
Somkaran Saini S/o Govindnarayan Saini, Presently
Resident At Nandpuri, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur.
7. M/s Pink City Agro Industries Partnership Firm, Through
Anil Solanki S/o Sohanlal Solanki, R/o Plot No. 132, 133,
Keshav Vihar, Gopalpura, Jaipur.
8. State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar, Sanganer, District
Jaipur.
9. Smt. Sonia Meena W/o Dulheram Meena, Resident Of Plot
No. 17, Durga Vihar, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur.
10. Sub-Registrar, Sanganer, District Jaipur.
11. Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur Through Secretary.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. SN Kumawat
Mr. Mahendra Sandilya
For Respondent(s) : Mr. SK Gupta
(2 of 6) [CW-9492/2021]
Mr. Shashi Bhushan Gupta
Ms. Surbhi Agarwal
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Judgment
05/10/2021
1. The present writ petition has been preferred laying challenge
to the order dated 31.8.2016, passed by the learned Board
of Revenue, Ajmer in Revision Petition No.6059/2016, which
was filed by the respondent no.1.
2. The facts as portrayed by the petitioner are that the
petitioner-trust filed suit for declaration and permanent
injunction under Section 88, 89 and 188 of the Rajasthan
Tenancy Act, 1955 before the court of SDO, Jaipur-II, Jaipur
(hereinafter referred to as "the learned trial Court").
3. Alongwith the aforesaid suit, an application seeking
temporary injunction under Section 212 of the Act of 1955
was also filed, in which, an interim order was passed by the
trial Court on 21.9.2005, inter alia, directing the parties to
maintain status-quo in relation to the status of the land and
revenue record.
4. The aforesaid interim order was vacated, rather not
extended by the trial Court when the matter was listed on
6.10.2015.
5. Being aggrieved of non-extension of the interim order, the
petitioner moved the learned Revenue Appellate Authority
(hereinafter referred to as the learned RAA for short) by way
of filing an appeal being Appeal No.378/2016.
(3 of 6) [CW-9492/2021]
6. The learned RAA vide its order dated 26.7.2016, passed an
interim order in petitioner's favour and has ordered to
maintain status-quo in relation to disputed property and
directed the State authorities to not proceed under Section
90A of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956.
7. Feeling aggrieved of the order aforesaid, the respondent
no.1 herein preferred a revision petition being Revision
Petition No.6059/2016 before the learned Board of Revenue,
Ajmer.
8. The learned Member of the Board of Revenue vide its order
dated 31.8.2016 allowed the appeal ex-parte and set aside
the interim order dated 26.7.2016 passed by the learned
RAA.
9. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition
essentially on the ground that the learned Member of the
Board of Revenue was not justified in passing the order
dated 31.8.2016 and setting aside the order of the learned
RAA dated 26.7.2016 without issuing any notice to the
petitioner.
10. Mr. SK Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents invited
Court's attention towards various documents enclosed with
the reply and pointed out that against the very same order
dated 6.10.2015 refusing to extend interim order, the
petitioner herein had preferred a revision petition
(No.6304/2015), and vide a detailed order dated
15.10.2015, the learned Revenue Board had dismissed
petitioner's revision petition.
11. He argued that since the petitioner's challenge to order
dated 6.10.2015 has been negated by the learned Board of
(4 of 6) [CW-9492/2021]
Revenue vide its order dated 15.10.2015, the petitioner
could not have maintained an appeal before learned RAA as
the order of the trial Court dated 6.10.2015 stood merged in
the order dated 15.10.2015 passed by learned Revenue
Board.
12. On the premise of these facts, learned counsel for the
respondent No.1 argued that the learned Board of Revenue
was, therefore, justified in setting aside the interim order
passed by the learned RAA on 26.7.2016, particularly when
the learned RAA had taken up the matter on 26.7.2016 and
granted interim order in favour of present petitioner, without
hearing the respondents or concerned parties ignoring the
fact that the next date fixed was 29.7.2016.
13. Indisputably, the application for temporary injunction filed
under Section 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act is still
pending consideration before the learned trial Court and the
parties are at loggerheads before one another and have
approached one authority after another laying challenge to
the interim order passed by the trial Court.
14. In the opinion of this Court, the order dated 31.8.2016
passed by the learned Board of Revenue impugned in the
present writ petition cannot be countenanced inasmuch as it
has been passed in flagrant violation of principles of natural
justice. It was required of the learned Member of the Board
of Revenue to at least afford opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner, who is the original plaintiff and more so when the
appellant before it, respondent no.1 had moved an
application seeking impleadment in the suit pending in the
trial Court.
(5 of 6) [CW-9492/2021]
15. It is rather surprising that the learned Member, Board of
Revenue has set aside the order dated 26.7.2016 passed by
the learned RAA without even hearing the present petitioner,
at whose instance such order (dated 26.7.2016) was passed.
16. True it is, that the order impugned dated 31.8.2016 passed
by the learned Board of Revenue suffers from manifest
irregularity and defiance of procedural law, but at the same
time, order of the learned RAA dated 26.7.2016 is also
tainted with identical infirmity.
17. A perusal of the proceedings (Annex.5) shows that on
28.6.2016, the learned RAA had issued notice of appeal,
making them returnable on 29.7.2016 and surprisingly, for
the reasons unknown, the matter was taken up for
consideration three days in advance (on 26.7.2016) and
interim order came to be passed.
18. This Court cannot resist from observing that the authorities
hearing appeal or revision are obligated to observe principles
of natural justice. Neither the learned RAA could take up the
matter in advance and could pass the order on 26.7.2016,
without hearing the present respondent nor could the
learned Board of Revenue pass the impugned order dated
31.8.2016 without hearing the present petitioner in a
revision petition filed by the respondent no.1.
19. In view of the above, the interim order dated 26.7.2016
passed by the learned RAA is set aside; the appeal
No.378/2016 pending before the learned RAA shall stand
dismissed on production of a certified copy of the order
instant.
(6 of 6) [CW-9492/2021]
20. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon
perusal of material available on record, this Court deems it
appropriate to dispose of the present writ petition with a
direction to trial Court to decide the stay application (TI
No.190/2012) filed by the petitioner under Section 212 of
the Rajasthan Tenancy Act on or before 15.11.2021.
21. It will be required of all concerned Courts to remit the record
concerning the present case No.34/2020 and consolidated
suit no.63/2020 to the court of SDM, Amer forthwith on
production of photostat copy of the order instant by any of
the parties.
22. Needless to observe that any third party rights created
during the pendency of the temporary injunction application
or suit shall be governed by Section 52 of the Transfer of
Property Act.
23. The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
C P GOYAL /183
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
