Kishan vs Kalu
2022 Latest Caselaw 4643 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 263/2021

1. Kishan S/o Seva Ji, Aged About 65 Years, By Caste Mali And Resident Of Tumbadiya, Tehsil And District Chittorgarh (Rajasthan).

2. Jagannath S/o Seva Ji, Aged About 63 Years, By Caste Mali Resident Of Tumbadiya, Tehsil And District Chittorgarh (Rajasthan).

3. Bali D/o Seva Ji, Aged About 67 Years, By Caste Mali Resident Of Tumbadiya, Tehsil And District Chittorgarh (Rajasthan).

----Appellants Versus

1. Kalu S/o Botu Ji, By Caste Mali And Resident Of Tumbadiya, Tehsil And District Chittorgarh (Rajasthan).

2. Laxman S/o Botu Ji, By Caste Mali Resident Of Tumbadiya, Tehsil And District Chittorgarh (Rajasthan).

3. Botu S/o Hokma Ji, Aged About 67 Years, By Caste Mali Resident Of Tumbadiya, Tehsil And District Chittorgarh (Rajasthan).

4. Shambhu S/o Botu Ji, Aged About 32 Years, By Caste Mali Resident Of Tumbadiya, Tehsil And District Chittorgarh (Rajasthan).

                                                                   ----Respondents


For Appellant(s)          :     Mr. Moti Singh Rajpurohit
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Sanjay Nahar &
                                Mr. Pushkar Taimni



          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI

Order

28/03/2022

The instant special appeal (writ) has been preferred by the

appellants (respondents before the learned Single Bench) for

(2 of 4) [SAW-263/2021]

assailing the order dated 16.03.2021 passed by learned Single

Bench whereby the writ petition preferred by the respondents was

accepted and the judgment and decree dated 30.05.2018 passed

by the Assistant Collector and Sub Divisional Officer, Chittorgarh,

Judgment & Decree dated 25.07.2019 passed by Revenue

Appellate Authority, Chittorgarh and the judgment dated

20.10.2020 passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer were quashed

and set aside and the matter was remanded back to the Assistant

Collector & Sub Divisional Officer, Chittorgarh to pass a fresh

judgment and decree after hearing both the parties.

We have heard and considered the submissions advanced by

Shri Moti Singh Rajpurohit, learned counsel representing the

appellants and Shri Sanjay Nahar, learned counsel representing

the respondents and have gone through the impugned order.

Shri Moti Singh submits that the observation made and the

finding recorded in the impugned order dated 16.03.2021 that the

Assistant Collector & Sub Divisional Officer, Chittorgarh passed the

order dated 30.05.2018 while exercising powers of Lok Adalat is

absolutely unwarranted. In support of this contention, Shri Moti

Singh drew the Court's attention to the order-sheet of proceedings

undertaken on 19.04.2018 by the SDO, Chittorgarh in the revenue

suit No.280/2013 whereby, reply of the respondents (writ-

petitioners herein) was closed, ex-parte proceedings were drawn

and the matter was posted in the Camp Court (Revenue Court),

Tumbadiya for recording evidence of the plaintiff on 30.05.2018.

Shri Rajpurohit submitted that on 30.05.2018, statement of

plaintiff was recorded and the suit for partition was decreed on

(3 of 4) [SAW-263/2021]

merits. The order does not give any indication that the suit was

being heard in a Lok Adalat. He pointed out that the seal which

was appended on the order dated 30.05.2018 regarding the

Rajasav Lok Adalat was incidental because the Lok Adalat

proceedings had also been undertaken on the very same day but

the suit in question was decided after regular trial. He thus, urged

that the impugned order is contrary to the record and hence,

cannot be sustained.

Shri Sanjay Nahar, counsel representing the respondents

(defendants before the revenue court) was not in a position to

dispute the fact that the respondents-defendants did not appear

before the SDO on 19.04.2018 and hence, their reply was closed

and proceedings were made ex-parte. Once, ex-parte proceedings

had been undertaken, there was no question of the suit being

decided in the spirit of Lok Adalat. Though, on the top of the order

dated 30.05.2018, the words 'Rajasav Lok Adalat-2018' are

recorded but simultaneously Camp Court, Tumbadiya is also

mentioned below the words. Going by the tenor of the order-sheet

dated 19.04.2018, it is clear that the case was posted in the Camp

Court, Tumbadiya on 30.05.2018 for regular proceedings and not

for the Lok Adalat. The Lok Adalat and Camp Court at Tumbadiya

was convened in pursuance of the State Government's campaign

'Justice Delivery at Doorsteps'. The case was never dealt with in

the Lok Adalat.

Three competent revenue courts i.e, (1) Assistant Collector &

Sub Divisional Officer, Chittorgarh, (2) Revenue Appellate

Authority, Chittorgarh and (3) Board of Revenue, Ajmer have

(4 of 4) [SAW-263/2021]

decided the issue of partition in favour of the plaintiffs-appellants

by recording concurrent findings of facts. Hence, such findings are

not liable to be disturbed while exercising extraordinary writ

jurisdiction conferred upon this Court by Article 226 of the

Constitution of India.

As a consequence of above discussion, we are of the opinion

that the impugned order dated 16.03.2021 passed by learned

Single Bench does not stand to scrutiny and is hereby reversed.

The appeal is allowed accordingly. No order as to costs.

(VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J (SANDEEP MEHTA),J 86-Sudhir Asopa/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)