Bohrilal vs Smt. Lachhi @ Laxmi
2023 Latest Caselaw 1801 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13624/2020

1. Bohrilal S/o Manmal, Aged About 80 Years, By Caste Jain, Resident Of Rani Station, Tehsil Rani, District Pali.

2. Pawan Bai W/o Bohrilal, Aged About 76 Years, By Caste Jain, Resident Of Rani Station, Tehsil Rani, District Pali.

3. Shankarlal S/o Pukhraj, Aged About 68 Years, By Caste Luhar, Resident Of Rani Station, Tehsil Rani, District Pali.

4. Kamla W/o Shankarlal, Aged About 65 Years, By Caste Luhar, Resident Of Rani Station, Tehsil Rani, District Pali.

5. Devendra S/o Shankarlal, Aged About 42 Years, By Caste Luhar, Resident Of Rani Station, Tehsil Rani, District Pali.

6. Gajendra S/o Mangilal, Aged About 43 Years, By Caste Luhar, Resident Of Rani Station, Tehsil Rani, District Pali.

7. Lrs Of Poni Bai W/o Mangilal, Through

8. Hansmukh S/o Mangilal And Poni Bai, Aged About 40 Years, Resident Of Rani Station, Tehsil Rani, District Pali.

9. Vimal S/o Mangilal And Poni Bai, Aged About 37 Years, Resident Of Rani Station, Tehsil Rani, District Pali.

----Petitioners Versus

1. Smt. Lachhi @ Laxmi D/o Binjaji W/o Jasaji, By Caste Mali, R/o Rani Station, Tehsil Rani, District Pali.

2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar, Rani, District Pali.

                                                                  ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)          :     Mr. Vinay Kothari
                                 Pradeep Singh Khichi
For Respondent(s)          :     Mr. Awardan Ujjawal



             HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI

                                      Order
16/02/2023

1. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the

record of the case.

(2 of 3) [CW-13624/2020]

2. The present writ petition is preferred by the petitioners

against the order dated 18.11.2020 passed by the Board of Revenue,

Ajmer in Revision/TA/901/2019/District Pali whereby the appeal

preferred by the present petitioners against the order dated 18.01.2019

passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Rani, District Pali in main civil case

No.4/14 was dismissed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

petitioners have preferred an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC

inter-alia, stating that the property in question has been converted into

an abadi land and, in these circumstances, suit is not maintainable

under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 and respondent No.1 prayed for

cancellation of patta issued in favour of the petitioners and that such

prayer is not sustainable under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act of 1955 as

the alternate remedy available to them is before the civil Court.

4. Reply was filed by the respondent for the application filed

under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The Board of Revenue, after hearing both

the parties, dismissed the revision while holding that the issues agitated

could be decided only after examining the facts and circumstances of

the case based on oral and documentary evidence, which would be

submitted before them and further held that at the preliminary stage,

the suit could not be dismissed in light of the application under order 7

Rule 11 as the same would not be in interest of the parties. This Court

find that the order passed by the Board of Revenue only after

examining the complete facts and circumstances of the case as well as

the oral and documentary evidence which would be placed that the

issue agitated can be adjudicated.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance on the

judgment rendered by this Hon'ble Court in the case of S.B. Civil Writ

(3 of 3) [CW-13624/2020]

Petition No.2866/2014 (Modu Ram Vs. Board of Revenue & Ors.)

decided on 16.02.2015. Relevant portion of this judgment read as

follows:-

"A bare reading of the conclusions arrived at in various judgments reveals that in all the judgments cited, the court was considering as to whether the suit was barred under Section 207 before the civil court. In the present case, the suit has been filed before the Revenue Court and the plea raised is that the suit is barred before the Revenue Court, no provision of law has been cited barring the jurisdiction of the Revenue Court.

In view of the express provisions of Section 242 of the Act, when admittedly, the relief claimed pertains to declaration of tenancy rights and partition which relief can be granted by the Revenue Court and as held by this Court in the case of Rukmani (supra) the relief of cancellation is merely ancillary, it cannot be said that the orders passed by the SDO and the Bord require any interference by this Court."

6. Further this Court has already held in the judgment of Modu

Ram (supra) that the relief of cancellation is merely ancillary and,

therefore, the orders passed by the SDO dated 18.01.2019 and Board

of Revenue dated 18.11.2020 does not require any interference.

7. Thus, the writ petition being devoid of merit, the same is

hereby dismissed.

(DR.NUPUR BHATI),J SSURABHII/101-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)