Mohanlal vs Mandir Murti Thakur Shri Shyam ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 12654 Raj

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                         JODHPUR
                     D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1266/2019

Mohanlal S/o Shri Tej Ram Ji Kalal, Aged About 64 Years,
Resident Of Savina, Tehsil Girva, District Udaipur (Raj.).
                                                                        ----Appellant
                                       Versus
1.       Mandir Murti Thakur Shri Shyam Sunderji, Udaipur,
         Through Assistant Commissioner, Devsthan Department,
         Udaipur (Raj.).
2.       The Urban Development Trust, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
                                                                     ----Respondents


For Appellant(s)             :     Mr. Vivek Mathur
For Respondent(s)            :     Mr. Deelip Kawadia



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

                                   JUDGMENT

21/10/2022

This intra court appeal, which is delayed by 63 days, is

directed against the order dated 27.02.2019 passed by the

learned Single Bench in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10441/2018.

The appellant has filed an application under Section 5 of the

Limitation Act for condonation of delay. The respondents have

filed reply to the application objecting to the prayer for

condonation of delay. While the appellant, in the application has

cited medical grounds to seek condonation of delay occasioned in

filing of the appeal, the respondents have pointed out that the

medical prescriptions, which have been filed alongwith the

application pertain to the year 2018, whereas the impugned

(2 of 3) [SAW-1266/2019]

judgment rejecting the writ petition of the petitioner was passed

by the learned Single Bench on 27.02.2019.

Having considered the averments made in the

application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the documents

annexed thereto and the reply of the respondents, we are of the

firm opinion that the appellant has failed to justify the delay

occasioned in filing of the intra court appeal. In spite thereof, we

have examined the merits of the case. We have perused the

impugned order dated 27.02.2019 passed by the learned Single

Bench of this court rejecting the writ petition preferred by the

petitioner; the judgment dated 01.12.2016 passed by the Board of

Revenue, Ajmer rejecting the second appeal preferred by the

appellant writ petitioner against the judgment and decree dated

29.02.2012 passed by the Land Settlement Officer and Ex-officio

Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur. The appellant writ

petitioner has also questioned the order dated 10.01.2018 passed

by the Board of Revenue, whereby a review application preferred

against the judgment 01.12.2016 was dismissed.

Facts relevant and essential for disposal of the appeal

are narrated in the order dated 27.02.2019 passed by the learned

Single Bench and thus, need not be repeated. On a perusal of the

record, it emanates that the petitioner has sought declaration of

Khatedari rights on the land entered in the name of "Thakur

Shyam Sundar Ji", the temple under the control of the Department

of Devasthan on the ground of long possession of 50 years. The

Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur as well as the Board of

Revenue, Ajmer after discussing the evidence available on record

came to a conclusion that the land in question was Khatedari land

of the deity 'Thakur Shyam Sundar Ji', who was declared to be the

(3 of 3) [SAW-1266/2019]

Khatedar vide the judgment and decree dated 21.12.1971 passed

by the SDO, Girva. Thereafter, vide judgment and decree dated

19.04.1993 in suit No.42/1991, direction was given to oust the

petitioner from the land in question. In execution of this decree,

the petitioner appellant was dispossessed from the land on

18.07.1995. Thus, the lis between the parties regarding Khatedri

rights stood adjudicated and the decree passed by the court

having competent jurisdiction attained finality. The appellant

could not have maintained a fresh suit for possession and

declaration of Khatedari rights over the disputed land. Otherwise

also, the land in question being Khatedari land of the deity, a

perpetual minor, the question of the petitioner appellant acquiring

rights over the same on the basis of prolonged possession would

not lie. Two competent Revenue courts and the learned Single

Bench of this court have recorded concurrent findings of facts for

turning down the claim of the petitioner appellant. These

concurrent findings ex facie do not suffer from any infirmity,

illegality or perversity warranting interference in the instant intra

court appeal, which fails and is dismissed as delayed so also on

merits.

                                   (KULDEEP MATHUR),J                                     (SANDEEP MEHTA),J


                                    17-Pramod/-









Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)