Kamla Andors vs Board Of Revenue Raj Andors ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 3494 Raj/2

[2023:RJ-JP:17757]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

                     S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 429/2010

Kamla S/o Nena (Since Deceased) Through Legal Heirs
1.    Sehajumal S/o Kamla
2.    Jumma Son Of Kamla
2/1 Sharifan W/o Lt. Jumma, aged about 50 years
2/2 Aabid S/o Lt. Jumma, aged about 28 years
2/3 Aarif S/o Lt. Jumma, aged about 26 years
2/4 Shakeel S/o Lt. Jumma, aged about 20 years
2/5 Mousam S/o Lt. Jumma, aged about 18 years
2/6 Dilshan D/o Lt. Jumma, aged about 19 years
2/7 Shkunat D/o Lt. Jumma, aged about 15 years (Minor)
through natural guardian Mother
3.    Ishaq Son Of Kamla
4.    Ishar Son Of Kamla
5.    Jakar Son Of Kamla,
All R/o Nagla, Aaram Singh Tehsil Pahadi, District Bharatpur.
                                                                      ----Petitoners
                                        Versus
 1.   Board Of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer
 2.    Bhagwan Das Son Of Manohar Lal Vaish, R/o Kaman, Tehsil
 Kaman, District Bharatpur (died during the pendency of suit
 through LR's)
 2/1 Naresh Kumar S/o Bhagwan Das, aged about 35 years,
 R/o Village Kaman, Tehsil Kaman, District Bharatpur
 3.    Narain Wife Of Ganga Sahai, Nagla, Aaram Singh Tehsil
 Pahadi, District Bharatpur.
 3/1 Sushila W/o Bhajan Lal @ Habbu, aged about 60 years
 3/2 Kailash S/o Bhajan Lal @ Habbu, aged about 35 years
 3/3 Satish S/o Bhajan Lal @ Habbu, aged about 30 years
 All R/o Nagla, Aaram Singh Post Matuki Tehsil Pahari, District
 Bharatpur.
 4. State Of          Rajasthan Through Tehsildar Kama, District
 Bharatpur.
                                                                     ---Respondents

Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4453/2014 Kamla S/o Nena (Since Deceased) Through Legal Heirs

[2023:RJ-JP:17757] (2 of 5) [CW-429/2010]

1. Sehajumal S/o Kamla

2. Jumma Son Of Kamla 2/1 Sharifan W/o Lt. Jumma, aged about 50 years 2/2 Aabid S/o Lt. Jumma, aged about 28 years 2/3 Aarif S/o Lt. Jumma, aged about 26 years 2/4 Shakeel S/o Lt. Jumma, aged about 20 years 2/5 Mousam S/o Lt. Jumma, aged about 18 years 2/6 Dilshan D/o Lt. Jumma, aged about 19 years 2/7 Shkunat D/o Lt. Jumma, aged about 15 years (Minor) through natural guardian Mother

3. Ishaq Son Of Kamla

4. Ishar Son Of Kamla

5. Jakar Son Of Kamla, All R/o Nagla, Aaram Singh Tehsil Pahadi, District Bharatpur.

----Petitioners Versus

1. Board Of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer

2. Bhagwan Das Son Of Manohar Lal Vaish, R/o Kaman, Tehsil Kaman, District Bharatpur (died during the pendency of suit through LR's) 2/1 Naresh Kumar S/o Bhagwan Das, aged about 35 years, R/o Village Kaman, Tehsil Kaman, District Bharatpur

3. Narain Wife Of Ganga Sahai, Nagla, Aaram Singh Tehsil Pahadi, District Bharatpur.

3/1 Sushila W/o Bhajan Lal @ Habbu, aged about 60 years 3/2 Kailash S/o Bhajan Lal @ Habbu, aged about 35 years 3/3 Satish S/o Bhajan Lal @ Habbu, aged about 30 years All R/o Nagla, Aaram Singh Post Matuki Tehsil Pahari, District Bharatpur.

4. State Of Rajasthan Through Tehsildar Kama, District Bharatpur.

                                                                   ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)             :    Mr. Rahul Kamwar
For Respondent(s)             :    Mr. Govind Choudhary
                                   Mr. Deen Dayal Sharma





 [2023:RJ-JP:17757]                   (3 of 5)                    [CW-429/2010]


                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

                                     Order

14/08/2023

1. Present petitions have been filed against the orders dated

05.10.2009 and 04.11.2008 passed by the Board of Revenue

whereby the judgment and decree dated 07.04.1998 was set

aside and the suit filed by respondent-Bhagwan Das was allowed.

2. With the consent of both the sides, the connected matters

are being taken up together for final adjudication.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contend the following:-

3/1 That vide order dated 19.11.1969, passed by the

competent court below in suit bearing No. 402/66, the suit

filed by Smt. Kamla for declaration and permanent

injunction was allowed and Smt. Kamala was declared as

the Khatedar of the subject land in dispute.

3/2 That vide the impugned order, the learned Board of

Revenue failed to render any finding qua the order dated

19.11.1969 wherein it was categorically noted that all the

properties pertaining to Sh. Bhola had been recorded in the

name of Smt. Kamala. In this regard, it was argued that the

said omission/failure to consider the above-stated material

fact, especially by the Board of Revenue, which is the last

fact finding authority, has caused great prejudice to the

interests of the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the

learned Board of Revenue, after duly considering all the material

facts, has rendered a well-reasoned and justified finding, which

calls for no interference of this Court. In this regard, it was

[2023:RJ-JP:17757] (4 of 5) [CW-429/2010]

emphasised that Smt. Kamala had preferred the suit below after a

prolonged lapse of 20 years, which was duly taken note of by the

learned Board of Revenue and thereafter, the impugned order was

passed.

5. Heard and considered the arguments raised by both the

sides.

6. On a perusal of the order passed by the Revenue Appellate

Authority dated 07.04.1998, it is quite apparent that due

consideration was given to the orders dated 19.11.1969 and

22.11.1983 and thereafter, the factum of the demise of Sh. Bhola

was appropriately taken note of. Moreover, after taking note of the

order dated 19.11.1969, the Relevant Appellate Authority passed

an order in favour of the petitioners. However, subsequently, the

Board of Revenue while passing the impugned order, has nowhere

recorded any findings qua the orders dated 19.11.1969 and

22.11.1983, which reflects non-consideration of the same,

thereby, precluding the due consideration of material facts such as

that of Smt. Kamala being declared as the Khatedar of the subject

land under dispute vide order 19.11.1969. The said

omission/failure to consider the findings recorded in the orders

dated 19.11.1969 and 22.11.1983, render the impugned order to

be non-speaking in nature, having been passed without

consideration of material aspects. Moreover, even during the

course of arguments, learned counsel for the respondents were

unable to satisfy the court qua the said orders having been

considered by the Board of Revenue while passing the impugned

order.

[2023:RJ-JP:17757] (5 of 5) [CW-429/2010]

6. In light of the above facts, this court is inclined to set aside

the impugned orders dated 05.10.2009 and 04.11.2008 passed by

the Board of Revenue.

7. While setting aside the impugned orders, this court is

inclined to remand the matter back to the Board of Revenue to

render appropriate findings after due consideration of the orders

dated 19.11.1969 and 22.11.1983. It is made clear that the

learned Revenue Board shall be free to adjudicate upon the

matter, in due accordance with law. It is also made clear that

while passing a speaking order, as directed above, due compliance

shall be made of the principles of natural justice. Both the sides

shall also be at liberty to put forth any legal submissions before

the Board of Revenue, if they choose to do so.

8. In light of the above, both petitions stand disposed of. All

pending application also stand disposed of.

(SAMEER JAIN),J

Pooja /80-81

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)