Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Smt. Anop Kanwar vs State Of Rajasthan on 5 April, 2022
Bench: Sandeep Mehta, Farjand Ali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 239/2020
Smt. Anop Kanwar, (Deceased) Widow Of Late Shri Amar Singh,
Former Jagiardar, Village Manpura Machedi, Tehsil Amer,
Districtjaipur, Through His Power Of Attorney Holder And Now
Will Holder Shri Rajveer Singh S/o Shri Suchha Singh, Aged
About 54 Years, R/o Plot No. 100, Laxmi Nagar, Tonk Road,
Jaipur.
----Appellant
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Government
Of Rajasthan, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Jaipur
2. The Khudkasht Commissioner, Gulabbari, Rajasthan,
Jaipur
3. The Collector, Sriganganagar
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Dr. RDSS Kharlia
Ms. Kinjal Purohit
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sunil Beniwal, AAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
05/04/2022
The instant intra-court appeal has been filed by the appellant
for assailing the order dated 08.09.2009 whereby writ petition
No.6918/2003 (Smt. Anop Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.)
preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by learned Single Bench
of this Court. The appeal is delayed by 3770 days. The appeal
has been filed by a person named Rajveer Singh claiming to be
the power of attorney-holder and will-holder of Smt. Anop Kanwar
(since deceased). Along with the appeal, an application under
(2 of 4) [SAW-239/2020]
Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been submitted wherein it has
been pleaded that the appellant was under a bonafide impression
that his counsel representing the connected matter being D.B.
Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.857/2011 (Bal Singh vs State of
Rajasthan) had filed an appeal on behalf of Smt. Anop Kanwar as
well because the counsel had been instructed to file appeal in both
the cases. The appellant claims that he was under a bonafide
impression that the appeal had been filed and the counsel also
kept on informing him regarding presentation of the appeal in the
case of Smt. Anop Kanwar as well. However, when D.B. Special
Appeal (Writ) No.857/2011 was allowed by judgment dated
22.01.2020, he approached his counsel engaged to file the appeal
and requested him to get the appeal of Smt. Anop Kanwar decided
on the same lines as both cases involved identical issues.
However, the applicant was surprised to find that no appeal had
ever been filed in the case of Smt. Anop Kanwar. The appellant
claims to have filed a complaint against the lawyer in the Bar
Council and pleading genuine ignorance regarding non-filing of the
appeal by the lawyer, he has approached this Court by way of this
appeal supported by the application under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act.
Learned AAG Shri Beniwal has filed reply to the application
wherein, specific assertion is made that the cause title of the
appeal reveals that it has been filed on behalf of the writ petitioner
Smt. Anop Kanwar who is no longer alive. The affidavits have been
sworn by Shri Rajveer Singh who claims to be the power of
attorney-holder and the will-holder of Smt. Anop Kanwar.
However, neither any such will nor any such power of attorney has
(3 of 4) [SAW-239/2020]
been filed along with the appeal. It is further stated that the
affidavit in support of the application under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act has been sworn as if Smt. Anop Kanwar was alive.
Photocopy will dated 18.08.2000 has been placed on record.
However, the respondents have questioned veracity of the said
will.
We have given our thoughtful consideration to the
submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the material
available on record.
Shri RDSS Kharlia, counsel representing the appellant
vehemently and fervently urged that fee had been paid to the
counsel concerned for filing appeals in the matters of Balsingh and
Smt. Anop Kanwar through a bank transfer. The appellant's power
of attorney-holder Shri Rajveer Singh has filed a complaint against
the lawyer who misled the appellant and did not file the appeal on
behalf of Smt. Anop Kanwar despite fee having been paid.
However, a perusal of the additional affidavit dated 12.11.2021
reveals that Shri Rajveer Singh filed a complaint against the
counsel concerned in the Bar Council of Rajasthan, Jodhpur
wherein, it has been alleged that he took out a sum of
Rs.10,000/- from the ATM and paid the same to the counsel
concerned for filing an appeal in this case. Apparently, thus, the
plea of Shri Kharlia that amount was paid to counsel through a
bank transfer is totally incorrect. In addition thereto, the
additional affidavit dated 12.11.2021 suffers from concealment of
fact inasmuch as the fact that Smt. Anop Kanwar is portrayed to
be alive in the affidavit. A great doubt is thus, created in the mind
(4 of 4) [SAW-239/2020]
of the Court regarding the credentials of Shri Rajveer Singh, who
has filed this appeal. It is neither stated in the application under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act nor in the complaint filed in the Bar
Council that Shri. Rajveer Singh gave Vakalatnama and signed
affidavit for filing the appeal. Thus, the plea that the counsel did
not file the appeal despite having been instructed is patently false.
The photostat copy of the will which has been filed along with the
appeal was allegedly executed on 18.08.2000. Apparently, since,
Smt. Anop Kanwar had expired, the power of attorney would have
become ineffective. The will seems to have been created at a
subsequent stage.
As a consequence, we are of the firm opinion that Shri
Rajveer Singh seems to be a busy-body who has somehow or the
other, cast evil eyes on the land of Smt. Anop Kanwar taking
advantage of her death. The averments made in the application
under Section 5 of the Limitation Act are totally false and
fabricated. The gross delay of more than ten years which has
occasioned in filing of the appeal is not explained and hence, the
instant appeal (writ) is dismissed as being time barred.
(FARJAND ALI),J (SANDEEP MEHTA),J
3-Sudhir Asopa/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
