Rajasthan High Court
Bhanwarlal S/O Sh. Shrinarayan vs M/S Land Mark Executive Pvt. Ltd on 20 April, 2022
Bench: Ashok Kumar Gaur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9086/2019
Bhanwarlal S/o Sh. Shrinarayan, R/o Village Mahapura, Tehsil
Sanganer, Distt. Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. M/s Land Mark Executive Pvt. Ltd., Registered Office 3,
Munirika Marg, New Delhi Through Authorized Agent
Pradeep Sharma S/o Naresh Chand Sharma, R/o F-1,
Vijay Path, Banipark, Jaipur.
2. Gopal S/o Laduram, R/o Village Mahapura, Tehsil
Sanganer, Distt. Jaipur.
3. Smt. Krishna Devi D/o Shrinarayan Sharma, R/o Village
Mahapura, Tehsil Sanganer, Distt. Jaipur. Presently R/o A-
48, Shivaji Marg, Nehru Nagar, Panipech, Jaipur.
4. Jitendra S/o Sh. Narain Sahai, R/o A-48, Shivaji Marg,
Nehru Nagar, Panipech, Jaipur.
5. Chandra Mohan S/o Sh. Narain Sahai, R/o A-48, Shivaji
Marg, Nehru Nagar, Panipech, Jaipur.
6. Shekhar S/o Sh. Narain Sahai, R/o A-48, Shivaji Marg,
Nehru Nagar, Panipech, Jaipur.
7. Rama Devi D/o Narain Sahai W/o Amit Sharma, Path-7,
Bandhu Nagar, Murlipura, Jaipur.
8. Shyama Devi D/o Narain Sahai W/o Nikhil Sharma, R/o
Village Jhanyi, Post Bar Ke Balaji, Jaipur.
9. Rajasthan Government Through Tehsildar, Sanganer,
District Jaipur.
10. Board Of Revenue, Rajasthan Ajmer Through Is Registrar.
11. Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaipur.
12. Assistant Collector Cum Executive Magistrate, Jaipur City-
I Jaipur.
13. Smt. Laxmi Devi Wife Of Late Shrinarayan Sharma,
(Deleted Respondent).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.N.K.Maloo, Sr. Adv. with
Mr.Pratyush Sharma, Adv.
(2 of 4) [CW-9086/2019]
For Respondent(s) : Mr.M.M.Ranjan, Sr. Adv. with
Mr.Rohan Agarwal, Adv.
Mr.R.K.Agarwal, Sr. Adv. with
Mr.Adhiraj Modi, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR
Order
20/04/2022
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging
the judgment dated 09.04.2019 passed by the Board of Revenue,
judgment dated 01.02.2016, passed by the Revenue Appellate
Authority and judgment dated 02.06.2015 granting preliminary
decree and the final decree dated 12.06.2015 in suit
No.134/2014.
This Court asked learned senior counsel for the petitioner to
satisfy as whether present writ petition is maintainable against all
the orders referred above as the parties are said to have filed an
application dated 11.06.2015 for settling their dispute in Lok
Adalat.
This Court finds that the Lok Adalat vide order dated
12.06.2015 accepted the application dated 11.06.2015 and on the
basis of alleged compromise said to be entered into between the
parties, decreed the suit.
This Court asked specifically as whether the present writ
petition is maintainable against an order passed by the Lok Adalat
as the remedy available to the aggrieved party is by way of filing
the writ petition as per law declared by the Apex Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though this
writ petition challenges the order passed by the Revenue Appellate
Authority and Board of Revenue as findings have also been
(3 of 4) [CW-9086/2019]
recorded on the merits of the matter, however, this Court can
exercise of writ to see the validity of the order passed by the Lok
Adalat on 12.06.2015.
Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the
judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Bhargavi
Construction and Ors. Vs. Kothakapu Muthyam and Ors.
reported in (2018) 13 SCC 480.
Learned counsel for the petitioner on the strength of the said
judgment, submitted that as per law laid down by the Apex Court,
the only remedy available to a litigant is to challenge the award of
Lok Adalat by way of filing writ petition under Article 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India in High court in accordance with law.
Learned counsel for the respondents agreed that the remedy
available to a litigant against an order of Lok Adalat is by way of
writ petition and as such they submitted that this Court may not
entertain the present writ petition which challenges the order
passed by the Board of Revenue and Revenue Appellate Authority
on merits and as such the petitioner may be directed to file fresh
petition, if he feels aggrieved by the order passed by the Lok
Adalat.
This Court, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court,
finds that the petitioner has a right to raise all his grievance
challenging the order of Lok Adalat by way of writ petition and as
such this Court finds that the present writ petition can be heard
and the issue raised by the petitioners in respect of order passed
by the Lok Adalat, can be examined by this Court.
This Court accordingly finds that the matter is required to be
heard by this Court, while considering the order passed by the Lok
(4 of 4) [CW-9086/2019]
Adalat on the basis of alleged compromise said to be entered into
between the parties.
Learned senior counsel Mr.R.K.Agarwal wants time to prepare
the matter.
List the matter on 09.05.2022.
(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR),J
Monika/12
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
