Rajasthan High Court

M/S Pink City Agro Industries vs Dadu Dawara Shri Dadu Dayal Ji ... on 21 October, 2021

Bench: Inderjeet Singh

     HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                 BENCH AT JAIPUR

             S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11150/2021

1.   M/s Pink City Agro Industries, Through Its Partners
     (I) Somkaran Saini Son Of Shri Govind Narayan Saini,
     Resident Of Nandpuri Malviya Nagar, Jaipur.
     (Ii) Anil Solanki Son Of Shri Sohan Lal Saini, Resident Of
     Plot No. 132-133, Keshav Vihar, Gopalpura Jaipur.
     (Iii) Dulheram Meena Son Of Shri Ramswaroop Meena,
     Resident Of Plot No. 17, Durga Vihar, Malviya Nagar,
     Jaipur.
2.   Smt. Soniya Meena Wife Of Shri Dulheram Meena,
     Resident Of House No. 17, Durga Vihar Malviya Nagar,
     Jaipur.
                                                              ----Petitioners
                                 Versus
1.   Dadu Dawara Shri Dadu Dayal Ji Maharaj Vikas Samiti,
     Registered Society No. 312/2016-17, Office At Village
     Sawai Gaitor, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur Through Its
     Secretary Heeralal (Dheerawat) Meena Son Of Shri
     Mangal Ram Meena, Resident Of Sawai Gatore, Tehsil
     Sanganer, District Jaipur.
                                                   (Plaintiff non-petitioner)
                           (Petitioner before the Board of Revenue)
2.   Purshottam Das Chela Ramdayal Das, Resident Of Kushal
     Nagar, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur.
3.   Smt. Anita Singh Kulhari Wife Of Jagdish Chandra Kulhari,
     Resident Of D-666, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur.
4.   Khemchand Man Son Of Shri Ghasi Ram Man, Resident Of
     Village Post Bhir, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur (Since
     Deceased) (Name Deleted)
5.   Smt. Shanti Devi Wife Of Shri Durgadas Kulhari, Resident
     Of Village Post Kulhariyon Ki Dhani, Vaya Visau, District
     Jhunjhunu, Presently Resident Of D-666, Malviya Nagar,
     Jaipur.
6.   Trust Mandir Shri Sitaram Ji, Dayal Ji, Mataji, Village
     Sawai     Gatore Through           Its    Secretary,     Gopal   Khadu,
     Resident Of Village Sawai Gatore, Tehsil Sanganer, District
     Jaipur.



                  (Downloaded on 25/10/2021 at 10:14:36 PM)
                                          (2 of 7)                  [CW-11150/2021]


7.     State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar, Tehsil Sanganer,
       District Jaipur.
8.     Jaipur   Development            Authority,        Jaipur    Through    Its
       Secretary, Office At Jda, J.l.n. Marg, Jaipur.
                                                                 ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.K. Gupta Mr. Sashi Bhushan Gupta Ms. Surabhi Agarwal Mr. Rahul Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahesh Gupta on behalf of Mr. G.P. Sharma

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH

Order

21/10/2021

Instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the

following prayers:

"It is, therefore, humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to accept and allow this writ petition, call for the entire record pertaining to the present matter:

(I) by issuing an appropriate, writ, order or direction may kindly set aside and quash the impugned order dated 21.09.2021 (Annexure-1) passed by the Board of Revenue Rajasthan Ajmer;

(ii) by issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction Sub Divisional Officer, Amer where suit/temporary injunction application is pending may be directed to decide the application for temporary injunction finally after maintaining the order dated 04.03.2021;

(iii) by issuing an appropriate, writ, order or direction the revision petition filed before the Board of Revenue Rajasthan Ajmer against the order dated 06.09.2021 and appeal filed before the learned Revenue Appellate Authority against the order dated 04.03.2021 may be

(3 of 7) [CW-11150/2021]

dismissed and order dated 04.03.2021 may kindly be restored;

(iv) such other order which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the case, also be passed in favour of humble petitioners along with cost."

Counsel for the petitioner submits that two revenue suits

bearing No. 34/2020 & 63/2020 were filed before the Court of

SDM, Amer with regard to land in dispute. Counsel further submits

that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Trust

Mandir Shri Sitaram Ji Vs. M/s Pink city Agro Industries

Partnership Firm & Ors (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9492/2021)

decided on 05.10.2021, which relates to suit No. 34/2020,

directed the Trial Court to decide the stay application filed under

Section 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act on or before 15.11.2021

vide order dated 05.10.2021 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.9492/2021 which reads as under:-

"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.

(4 of 7) [CW-11150/2021]

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.

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 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

(5 of 7) [CW-11150/2021]

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.

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

(6 of 7) [CW-11150/2021]

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.

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."

Counsel further submits that the present proceedings arise

out of the consolidated suit No.63/2020 and the learned Board of

Revenue passed the order to maintain the status quo ignoring the

earlier order passed by the Revenue Courts in suit No.34/2020

and further submitted that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court

(7 of 7) [CW-11150/2021]

has already directed to decide the stay application along with

consolidated suit No.63/2020 and prayed that the order passed

by the Board of Revenue be set-aside.

Counsel for the respondents has opposed the submissions

made by counsel for the petitioner.