Chittar vs Board Of Revenue, Ajmer ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 3627 Raj/2

[2023:RJ-JP:18118-DB]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

               D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1498/2006

    1. Chittar S/o Birdha, By caste Meena, R/o Govindpura @
       Ropada, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur. At present R/o
       Beriya Basti, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur.
    2. Jagdish S/o Birdha, By caste Meena, R/o Govindpura @
       Ropada, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur. At present R/o
       Beriya Basti, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur.
                                                                      ----Appellants
                                       Versus
    1. Board Of Revenue, Ajmer
    2. District Collector, Jaipur
    3. Tehsildar, Sanganer, Jaipur
    4. Sub Divisional Officer- II, Sanganer, Jaipur
                                                                    ----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Ashish Sharma Mr. DK Dixit Mr. Ragvendra Singh for Mr. Bhanu Pareek

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Mehta, AAG with Ms. Archana Mr. Yashodhar Pandey Mr. Prawal Mishra

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

Order

17/08/2023

This appeal is directed against order dated 24.11.2006

passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition filed

by the appellants, aggrieved by the order of the Board of

Revenue, has been dismissed.

[2023:RJ-JP:18118-DB] (2 of 5) [SAW-1498/2006]

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants would

argue that the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition

without appreciating that the basis for the Board of Revenue to

invoke its jurisdiction under Section 232 of the Rajasthan Tenancy

Act, 1955 was based on non existent fact and also contrary to

record. He would submit that a perverse finding was recorded by

the Board of Revenue in its order dated 13.07.2000 that the

Tehsildar/Defendent in the Revenue Suit was not afforded proper

opportunity to lead his defence and decision of the case, prior to

the date which was already fixed for hearing, was improper, was

completely perverse. It is argued that the only reason assigned by

the Board of Revenue to invoke jurisdiction under Section 232 is

based on the aforesaid consideration and no other consideration.

Referring to orders in order sheets of the revenue suit, it is argued

that, even though initially Tehsildar sought time to lead evidence,

later on, the case was taken up at the Camp Court, Sanganer on

27.09.1986 and on that day the representative of Tehsildar

appeared and stated that they do not want to lead any evidence

and the case may be decided. Faced with such a situation,

Revenue Board had no option but to proceed to decide the case.

Therefore, a finding that proper opportunity of hearing was not

afforded to the defendants ignores admitted factual position on

record. Further submission of learned senior counsel for the

appellant is that the appellant filed suit seeking declaration of

khatedari rights on emphatic pleadings of they being in cultivating

position of the land in dispute at the time of resumption of

jagirdari under the Jagirdari Resumption Act, 1952. Not only

pleadings were made but evidence in this regard was also led by

[2023:RJ-JP:18118-DB] (3 of 5) [SAW-1498/2006]

the appellants to establish their case which led the learned

Revenue Court to pass a decree in his favour. That decree was

neither challenged in appeal nor other remedies were taken

recourse to and after inordinate delay of twelve years reference

was made to the Board of Revenue. It is also the submission of

learned counsel for the appellants that the Board of Revenue did

not appreciate that the reference itself was inordinately delayed.

Therefore, it is argued that the order of Board of Revenue was

liable to be interfered with.

Learned AAG appearing for State would submit that the

decree passed by the learned Revenue Court in favour of the

appellants was without just and fair trial. Referring to order in

order sheets which have been referred by the learned senior

counsel for the appellants, he would highlight that initially, case

was listed for orders for evidence of respondent/Tehsildar but all

of sudden, the hearing of the case was preponed, case was closed

and the order was passed. This having been noted by the Board of

Revenue, order was passed remanding the case for just and fair

trial so that all the parties get proper opportunity. His contention

is that the Collector while making a reference highlighted various

aspects including specific ground taken that the suit itself was

barred by limitation and that appellants were encroachers and not

bonafide cultivators in possession so as to claim to be recorded

as tenants and khatedars.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the

order passed by the learned Single Judge as also the order passed

by the Board of Revenue.

[2023:RJ-JP:18118-DB] (4 of 5) [SAW-1498/2006]

The order passed by the Board of Revenue on 13.07.2000,

after recording the contents of the order making reference and the

contention of the appellants has recorded brief reasons in para 5

of its order which impelled it to invoke jurisdiction and remand the

case for consideration afresh after setting aside the judgment

decree passed in favour of the appellants on 27.09.1986. The only

reason assigned by the Board of Revenue is that though the Nayab

Tehsildar appeared on 20.09.1986 and sought time to lead

evidence for which, the case was listed on 18.10.1986, thereafter,

in the Camp Court case was taken on an earlier date on

27.09.1986 and without affording any opportunity to lead

evidence, matter was decided. We have perused relevant order

sheets. As far order in order sheet dated 27.09.1986 is concerned

what it records is that on a prayer for early hearing made, the

case was taken up on a date prior to 18.10.1986 in Camp Court,

Sanganer on 27.09.1986. The order sheet records that the

representative of Tehsildar appeared and stated that he does not

want to lead any evidence and the case may be decided.

Apparently, therefore, it is not a case where that the hearing of

the case was preponed without notice and knowledge of Tehsildar

but the order sheet records that Tehsildar does not want to need

any evidence. Therefore, to say that proper opportunity of hearing

is not given, is not discernible from mere reading of the order

sheets. Under what circumstances such statements were made on

behalf of Tehsildar, has not been considered by the Board of

Revenue. The finding of the Board of Revenue is only based on the

order sheets. If may say so, the Board of Revenue misread the

order sheets particularly order in order sheet dated 27.09.1986.

[2023:RJ-JP:18118-DB] (5 of 5) [SAW-1498/2006]

Since the Board of Revenue has not assigned any other reason to

set aside the judgment decree of the Revenue Court, in our

considered opinion, the finding of the Board of Revenue suffers

from perversity and patent misreading of the order sheets. In that

view of the matter, we are inclined to interfere with the order

passed by the learned Single Judge as well as the order passed by

the Board of Revenue on 13.07.2000. Both the orders are,

therefore, set aside.

In the circumstances of the case and taking into

consideration various aspects and contentions which have been

raised before us including aspects relating to preponing of the

date of hearing, we leave all these aspects to be examined by the

Board of Revenue. Case is accordingly remanded to the Board of

Revenue. The Board of Revenue shall afford due and proper

opportunity of hearing to both the parties and shall decide the

case afresh.

Considering that this is a case where the appellants are

seeking a declaration of their Khatedari rights and the suit was

filed in the year 1979, the Board of Revenue shall ensure that the

proceedings are decided one way or the other, within an outer

limit of three months from the date of the receipt of copy of this

order.

Accordingly, the special appeal writ is allowed.

(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),J

126- Mohit Kumar

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)