Heera @ Heera Ram vs Board Of Revenue, Ajmer
2022 Latest Caselaw 9572 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9058/2022

Heera @ Heera Ram S/o Late Kalu, Aged About 65 Years, R/o Village Khardi, Tehsil Marwar Junction, District Pali.

----Petitioner

Versus

1. Board of Revenue at Ajmer, Through Its Registrar.

2. Revenue Appellate Authority, Pali.

3. Sub Division Officer, Sojat, District Pali.

4. State of Rajasthan through Tehsildar, Marwar Junction, District Pali.

5. Mohan S/o Kalu,

6. Jetha S/o Kalu,

7. Chuna S/o Chajja,

8. Tara S/o Chhaja,

9. Hajnai W/o Rugha Ram,

10. Bhola Ram S/o Rugha Ram,

11. Tulchha Ram S/o Deva Ram, All Respondent Nos.5 to 11 R/o Village Khardi, Tehsil Marwar Jn., District Pali.

12. Sugna D/o Deva Ram W/o Guna Ram Bavri, R/o Village Sinla, Tehsil Marwar Jn., District Pali.

13. Vidhya Devi D/o Rugha Ram W/o Suja Ram, By Caste Bavri, R/o Village Jadan, Tehsil Marwar Junction, Pali.

14. Smt. Ramu D/o Rugha Ram W/o Bela Ram, By Caste Bavri, R/o Village Bagawas, The. Sojat, District Pali.

                                                                 ----Respondents


For Petitioner          : Mr. G.R. Punia, Sr. Advocate assisted by
                          Mr. Mahaveer Bhanwariya





                                              (2 of 5)                     [CW-9058/2022]


                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

                                        Order

22/07/2022

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-plaintiff

being aggrieved with the judgment dated 23.03.2022

(Annexure-14) passed by the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan,

Ajmer (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Board of Revenue') in the

second appeal filed by the respective respondent-defendants

under Section 224 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955

(hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act of 1955').

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-plaintiff and his

brother respondent No.5 filed a revenue suit for declaration and

permanent injunction under Sections 88, 92A and 188 of the Act

of 1955 before the respondent No.3-Sub Divisional Officer, Sojat,

District Pali (hereinafter to be referred as 'the SDO concerned')

with a pryer to declare them as khatedars of the agriculture land

situated in village Khardi District Pali, description of which is

provided in the revenue suit. The respective

respondent-defendants filed their written statements to the plaint

and raise certain additional pleas regarding their khatedari rights

over the land in question on account of adverse possession etc.

It appears that the revenue suit was filed in the year 1992,

however, the SDO concerned framed only two issues including the

issue of relief on 21.12.1994 but did not frame any issue in

respect of the additional pleas raised by the respective

respondent-defendants.

(3 of 5) [CW-9058/2022]

The trial in that revenue suit went on, however, in the year

2003, the respective respondent-defendants moved an application

with a prayer to frame issues after taking into consideration the

averments of the plaint as well as the written statements. The

SDO concerned rejected the said application and proceed with the

revenue suit and ultimately decreed the suit in favour of the

petitioner-plaintiff vide judgment dated 26.05.2004 (Annexure-

10).

Being aggrieved with the judgment dated 26.05.2004

(Annexure-10) passed by the SDO concerned, the respective

respondent-defendants preferred an appeal before the respondent

No.2-Revenue Appellate Authority, Pali, however, the said appeal

came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 03.09.2004

(Annexure-12). Being aggrieved with the same, the respective

respondent-defendants preferred the second appeal before the

Board of Revenue, which came to be allowed vide impugned

judgment dated 23.03.2022 (Annexure-14). Hence, this writ

petition has been filed.

The Board of Revenue in the impugned judgment has

observed that the SDO concerned has framed issues while taking

into consideration only the averments of the plaint and has not

framed any issue while taking into consideration the additional

pleas raised by the respective respondent-defendants in their

written statements. The Board of Revenue has held that the SDO

concerned has committed error in not framing proper issues after

taking into consideration the averments made in the plaint filed by

the petitioner-plaintiff as well as the written statements filed by

the respective respondent-defendants, therefore, the matter

(4 of 5) [CW-9058/2022]

requires to be remanded to the concerned SDO for a fresh

decision after framing proper issues. After observing this, the

Board of Revenue has passed the impugned judgment while

setting aside the judgments passed by the SDO concerned and

Revenue Appellate Authority, Pali and remanded the matter.

Learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff has argued that

the Board of Revenue has grossly erred in passing the impugned

judgment. It is submitted that the application for framing

additional issues was filed by the respective

respondent-defendants after a delay of around 10 years and even

in that application they have not suggested to frame particular

issues. It is submitted that in view of the above facts and

circumstances of the case, the Board of Revenue has illegally

passed the impugned judgment and erred in remanding the

matter to the SDO concerned for a fresh adjudication of the suit

after framing issues as per the averements raised in the plaint as

well as the written statements.

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff and

after going through the material available on record, this Court is

of the opinion that the Board of Revenue has not committed any

illegality in passing the impugned judgment.

It is to be noticed that the SDO concerned has framed only

two issues, including the issue of relief, while taking into

consideration the averments raised in the plaint only and has not

framed any issue while taking into consideration the additional

pleas raised by the respective respondent-defendants in their

written statements, wherein they have claimed their khatedari

rights over the land in question on the basis of adverse possession

(5 of 5) [CW-9058/2022]

etc. The respective respondent-defendants have also disputed the

possession of the petitioner-plaintiff on the land in question.

It is true that the application of the respective

respondent-defendants for framing additional issues was delayed

but that itself cannot be a ground for rejecting the application for

framing the additional issues.

In the above facts and circumstances of the case, I don't find

any case for interference in the judgment impugned passed by the

Board of Revenue.

Hence, this writ petition is dismissed.

However, as the petitioner-plaintiff filed the revenue suit way

back in the year 1992, it is expected that the SDO concerned shall

make every endeavour to decide the said revenue suit as per the

impugned judgment passed by the Board of Revenue expeditiously

preferably within a period of one year from today.

Stay petition also stands dismissed.

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J

Abhishek Kumar S.No.26

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)