Pancharam Son Of Tejiya (Since ... vs Nathuram
2022 Latest Caselaw 862 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18049/2021

1. Pancharam Son Of Tejiya (Since Deceased), Through His Legal Representatives -

1/1 Sanwlaram S/o Late Pancharam, Aged About 56 Years, By Cate Bheel, Resident Of Taram Vatera, Tehsil Bagora, District Jalore (Raj.). 1/2 Jabraram S/o Late Pancharam, Aged About 51 Years, By Cate Bheel, Resident Of Taram Vatera, Tehsil Bagora, District Jalore (Raj.).

1/3 Punmaram S/o Late Pancharam, Aged About 38 Years, By Cate Bheel, Resident Of Taram Vatera, Tehsil Bagora, District Jalore (Raj.). 1/4 Ghewaram S/o Late Pancharam, Aged About 31 Years, By Cate Bheel, Resident Of Taram Vatera, Tehsil Bagora, District Jalore (Raj.). 1/5 Dropi Devi W/o Late Pancharam, Aged About 80 Years, By Cate Bheel, Resident Of Taram Vatera, Tehsil Bagora, District Jalore (Raj.).

----Petitioners Versus

1. Nathuram S/o Bhuraram, By Caste Bheel, Resident Of Jasol, District Barmer.

2. Ombu Devi W/o Tararam, By Caste Bheel, Resident Of Jasol, District Barmer.

3. Jeetu S/o Tararam, By Caste Bheel, Resident Of Jasol, District Barmer.

4. Devaram S/o Taranram, By Caste Bheel, Resident Of Jasol, District Barmer.

5. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar, Jalore, District Jalore.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Teja Ram through V.C.

For Respondent(s)          :     ---



                      JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA



                                         (2 of 4)                [CW-18049/2021]

                                    Order

18/01/2022

1. By way of present writ petition, the petitioners have

challenged the order dated 20.10.2021, passed by the learned

members of the Board of Revenue in an appeal filed by the

petitioners being appeal No. 3119/2021 of Jalore.

2. The facts narrated in brief are that the legal representatives

of petitioner Pancharam instituted a suit for declaration that he be

declared successor/owner of the land belonging to Bhura S/o

Hamira situated in Khasra No. 57 of village Vatera, Tehsil

Jaswantpura, District Jalore. The said suit was decreed by

Additional Collector, Bhinmal (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial

Court') vide order dated 11.03.2010.

3. The respondents No. 1 to 4 preferred an appeal along with

an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act claiming

themselves to be the legal heirs of Bhura. The appeal filed by

respondents No. 1 to 4 was allowed by the Revenue Appellate

Authority vide order dated 30.06.2021 and the matter was

remanded back to the trial Court with a direction to hear all the

parties, including the appellants therein, who claimed themselves

to be the legal heirs of Bhura.

4. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 30.06.2021, passed by

the Revenue Appellate Authority, the present petitioners preferred

second appeal under Section 225 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act,

1955 before the Board of Revenue, which was registered as

Appeal/T.A/2021/3119/Jalore.

5. The members of the Board of Revenue set aside the order

passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, while holding that the

Revenue Appellate Authority was not justified in accepting the

(3 of 4) [CW-18049/2021]

appeal, without first considering the application under Section 5 of

the Limitation Act. While allowing the appeal, the members of the

Board however remanded the case to the trial Court.

6. Mr. Teja Ram, learned counsel for the petitioners oppugning

the order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority on

20.10.2021 argued that the members of the Board of Revenue

were though justified in setting aside the order passed by the

Revenue Appellate Authority on 30.06.2021, in as much as, the

Revenue Appellate Authority had not considered the delay in filing

the appeal, which was a substantial delay of 9 years, but not in

remanding the case to the trial Court. He argued that the matter

ought to have been sent back to Revenue Appellate Authority.

7. It was argued that on account of the matter being remanded

back to the trial Court, petitioners' documents and contentions,

which were raised before the Revenue Appellate Authority, by way

of an application under Order LXI Rule 27 of CPC, would remain

unattended/unheard.

8. Heard.

9. Once the members of Board of Revenue have found that the

Revenue Appellate Authority was not justified in allowing the

appeal without considering the application under Section 5 of the

Limitation Act, ideally the matter should have been sent back to

the Revenue Appellate Authority only. But as per the order of

Revenue Appellate Authority dated 30.06.2021, the matter was

ordered to be heard by the trial Court, as respondent Nos. 1 to 4,

who claim themselves to be the legal heirs of Bhura, were not

heard.

10. However, in view of series of judgments of the Supreme

Court which rule that in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under

(4 of 4) [CW-18049/2021]

Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court is not

supposed to correct all the minor errors of law committed by the

Sub-ordinate Courts, interference by this Court in supervisory

jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not

warranted. Substantial justice has been done, as all the parties

have been asked to approach the trial Court for adjudication and

assertion of their rights.

11. Writ petition, is thus, dismissed.

12. Needless to say that the petitioners and the respondents

shall be free to take all permissible pleas and place the required

documents in their favour.

13. Stay application is also dismissed.

(DINESH MEHTA),J 21-jayesh/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)