Sahab Ram vs State Of Raj. And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 12227 Raj

(1 of 6) [CW-8123/2012]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8123/2012

Sahab Ram S/o Shri Shail Ram, aged 60 years, B/c Jat, R/o Narsinghpur, Teshil Padampur, District Sri Ganganagar.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State of Rajasthan through Tehsildar Revenue Department, Padampur.

2. Board of Revenue for Rajasthan at Ajmer.

3. Revenue Appellate Authority, Sri Ganganagar.

4. Sub Divisional Officer, Padampur.

5. Manphool (deceased) through legal representatives 5/1 Smt. Jaikori W/o Shri Manphool 5/2 Balram S/o Manphoo.

5/3 Badri S/o Manphoo (deceased) through legal representatives 5/3/1 Smt. Sharda w/o Badri Ram 5/3/2 Ms. Sunita D/o Badri Ram 5/3/3 Sunil S/o Badri Ram

5/4 Braglal S/o Manphool 5/5 Jagdish S/o Manphool 5/6 Sohan Lal s/o Manphool (deceased) through legal representatives 5/6/1 Smt. Guddi W/o Sohan Lal 5/6/2 Magi lal s/o Sohan Lal 5/6/3 Ms. Monika d/o Sohan Lal

5/7 Suresh S/o Manphool All are B/c Jat, R/o Narsinghpur Tehsil, Padampur, District Sri Ganganagar.

5/8 Smt. Vidya Devi D/o Manphool,, W/o Netraj B/c Jat, R/o Likhmewala, Tehsil Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar. 5/9 Smt. Guddi Devi D/o Manphool, W/o Lal Chand, B/c Jat, R/o Chak 2 K.H.M. (Khalia) Tehsil Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh.

5/10 Smt. Rajjo Devi D/o Manphool, W/o Duli Chand, B/c Jat, R/o Chak 2 K.H.M. (Khalia) Tehsil Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh.

(2 of 6) [CW-8123/2012]

5/11 Smt. Kishna Devi D/o Manphool, W/o Kishan Lal, B/c Jat, R/o Chak 19 L.M.P. Tehsil Sardulshahar, District Sri Ganganagar.

5/12 Smt. Vimla Devi D/o Manphool, W/o Ram Kumar, B/c Jat, R/o LIkhmewala, Tehsil Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar.

6. Duda Ram S/o. Sahi Ram

7. Girdhari Lal S/o Sahi Ram (deceased) through legal representatives 7/1 harkori W/o Girdhari lal 7/2 Balvant Ram s/o Girdhari Lal 7/3 Ved Prakash S/o Girdhari lal All B/c Jat, R/o Nrisinghpur Tehsil Padampur, District Sri Ganganagar.

7/4 Smt. Rajeshwari d/o Girdhari lal W/o Rajendra B/c Jat. R/o majhuwas, Tehsil Padampur, District Sri Ganganagar.

7/5 Smt. Kamla D/o Girdhari lal, W/o Jagdish, B/c Jat, R/ o Daulatpura Tehsil & District Sri Ganganagar. 7/6 Smt. Indra d/o Girdhari lal, W/o Vijay Singh, B/c Jat, R/o Ganeshgarh Tehsil & District Sri Ganganagar.

8. Hetram (deceased) through legal representatives 8/1 Smt. Mirjo Devi W/o Hetram 8/2 Ajay Kumar s/o Hetram 8/3 Vijay Kumar s/o Hetram All B/c Jat, R/o Ward No. 13 Purani Abadi, Sri Ganganagar.

8/4 Smt. Annubala d/o Hetram, W/o Sandeep choudhary, B/c jat, R/o 1-C Patel Nagar, Bikaner.

9. kashi Ram s/o Sahi Ram, b/c Jat, R/o Narsinghpur, presently Ward No. 13, Purani Abadi, Sri Ganganagar.

10. Smt. Santo Devi D/o Sahi Ram, w/o Ram Kumar, R/o Karnisar Tehsil Vijaynagar, District Sri Ganganagar.

11. Smt. Badu Devi D/o Sahi Ram, W/o Mithu Ram, r/o Kamrania Tehsil Vijaynagar, district Sri Ganganagar.

12. Smt. Bidama Devi D/o Sahi Ram, W/o Dharma Ram, R/o Amarsinghpura, Tehsil Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh.

13. Krishna lal S/o Sahi Ram, B/c Meghvanshi, R/o Narsinghpur Tehsil Padampur, District Sri Ganganagar.

14. Smt. Baga Devi W/o JHajari Ram

15. Smt. Janki Devi D/o Hajari Ram

(3 of 6) [CW-8123/2012]

16. Golu Ram S/o Hajari Ram

17. Revta Ram S/o Sahi Ram All B/c Meghvanshi, r/o Narsinghpur, Tehsil Padampur, District Sri Ganganagar.

18. Adu Ram S/o Sahi Ram, B/c Meghvanshi, r/o Nrisinghpur, Tehsil Padampur, District Sri Ganganagar.

19. Smt. Pana Devi D/o Fattu Ram

20. Smt. Geeta Devi D/o Fattu Ram All B/dc Meghvanshi R/o Nrisinghpur, Tehsil Padampur, District Sri Ganganagar.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. J.L. Purohit assisted by Mr. Sourabh Kant Vyas For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sushil Bishnoi Mr. Jitender Singh Bhaleria Mr. R.C. Joshi

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Order

12/10/2022

The case comes up on an application preferred by the

respondents for early hearing of the case.

The same is not opposed by the counsel for the petitioner.

For the reasons mentioned in the application the application

for early hearing is allowed. With the consent of the learned

counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final

disposal today itself.

Brief facts noted for disposal of the present writ petition are

that the petitioner along with respondent Nos. 5 to 9 filed a suit

under Section 88 and 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955

before the Sub Divisional Officer, Srikaranpur, (Camp-Padampur).

Along with the suit, an application for temporary injunction was

also filed. The Sub Divisional Officer, Srikaranpur, (Camp-

(4 of 6) [CW-8123/2012]

Padampur) allowed the application for temporary injunction and

passed the interim order dated 29.07.2005. Against this order

dated 29.07.2005, the respondent/defendant Nos. 1 to 3 preferred

an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority and the

Revenue Appellate Authority initially passed an interim order on

03.09.2005, whereby, the order dated 29.07.2005 was stayed,

however, ultimately the appeal preferred by the respondent/

defendant was rejected vide order dated 03.05.2012. Being

aggrieved, the respondents/defendants filed a revision petition

against the order dated 03.05.2012 before the Board of Revenue

and the Board of Revenue vide its order dated 20.07.2012

quashed and set aside the order passed by the Revenue Appellate

Authority dated 03.05.2012. Hence this writ Petition.

Learned Senior counsel submits that the order-sheets of the

Board of Revenue produced on record clearly show that the

petitioners were never issued notice of Revision Petition preferred

by the respondent/defendant and without giving an opportunity of

hearing to the petitioners straight away, the judgment dated

20.07.2012 was passed. Learned senior counsel submits that the

proceedings conducted by the Board of Revenue are not only de

hors the law, but are in gross violation of the principles of natural

justice. The procedure adopted by the Board of Revenue is

absolutely arbitrary and illegal. Since the judgment dated

20.07.2012 is having civil and evil consequences, thus, the same

is required to be quashed and set aside. He, therefore, prays that

the writ petition may be allowed and the order dated 20.07.2012

passed by the Board of Revenue may be quashed and set aside.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that

although they supported the order dated 20.07.2012, but are

(5 of 6) [CW-8123/2012]

unable to show that the petitioners were ever issued notices and

the order dated 20.07.2012 was passed after giving a reasonable

opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. Learned counsel submit

that one of the plaintiffs being non-petitioners No. 5/3 was duly

represented. Although he is unable to show that all the persons

who are party to the proceedings were issued notices and the

notices were served upon them. He, therefore, submits that since

the suit proceedings are still pending consideration before trial

court and the interim order is operating in the writ petition,

therefore, in the interest of justice, the learned trial court may be

directed to decide the suit itself at an early date.

I have considered the submission made at the Bar and gone

through the relevant record of the case including the order

impugned dated 20.07.2012 passed by the Board of Revenue,

(Raj.) Ajmer.

It is noted that as per the order-sheets produced before this

Court of the revision petition decided by the Board of Revenue,

the notices of the revision petition were never issued to the

petitioners. Thus, it can be inferred that the Board of Revenue

decided the revision petition preferred by the respondent-

defendants without adhering to the procedure established, much

less the fair procedure giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing

to the petitioner and all concerned before deciding the case. Since,

the counsel for the respondents are not in a position to show that

service of notice was effected upon the petitioner, therefore, this

court has no option but to rely upon the order-sheets produced

before this court, wherein it is more than apparent that the

petitioners were never issued notices and, therefore there was no

(6 of 6) [CW-8123/2012]

occasion for them to appear before the Board of Revenue in the

revision petition preferred by the respondents/defendants.

The procedure adopted by the Board of Revenue is

absolutely inappropriate and the order passed is also in gross-

violation of the principles of natural justice much less the same is

in gross violation of the judicial discipline. The order dated

20.07.2012 is unsustainable in the eyes of law. The judgment

dated 20.07.2012 is quashed and set aside.

In view of the discussion made above, the writ petition is

allowed. The judgment and order dated 20.07.2012 passed by the

Board of Revenue is quashed and set aside. The learned trial court

is directed to decide the pending suit itself at the earliest

preferably within a period of one year from the date of receipt of

certified copy of this order. Since the interim order is operating in

the writ petition since 08.08.2012, status quo with respect to the

subject piece of land shall be maintained by all the parties till the

disposal of the suit.

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J

6-nitin/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)