Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Champa Lal vs The Board Of Revenue ... on 1 March, 2024
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2024:RJ-JD:10484]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16696/2023
1. Champa Lal S/o Naina Ram, Aged About 63 Years,
2. Pukhraj S/o Naina Ram, Aged About 60 Years,
3. Daulat Ram S/o Naina Ram, Aged About 57 Years,
All B/C Mali, R/o Vanar Chowk, Gandhipura, Balotra,
District Barmer, Now Balotra.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The Board Of Revenue Rajasthan, Ajmer.
2. Smt Geeta Devi D/o Nain Ram, W/o. Deendayal Panwar,
B/c Mali, R/o Gandhipura, Balotra, Tehsil Pachpadra,
District Barmer.
3. Smt. Narayani D/o Naina Ram, R/o Vanar Chowk,
Gandhipura, Balotra, District Barmer.
4. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Tehsildar Pachapadra,
District Barmer.
5. Pramod Kumar S/o Champa Lal, By Caste Agarwal,
Resident Of Agarwal Colony, Balotra, Tehsil Pachpadra,
District Barmer, At Present Resident Of A-96, Kamla
Nehru Nagar First Extension, Jodhpur.
6. Smt. Nirmla Devi W/o Rajkumar Singhal, Resident Of
Roongji Ki Pol Balotra, Tehsil Pachpadra, District Barmer.
7. Mohan Lal S/o Choga Lal, By Caste Mali, Resident Of Near
Mali Samaz Bhawan, Gandhipura, Balotra, Tehsil
Pachpadra, District Barmer.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Khet Singh Rajpurohit
For Respondent(s) : Smt. Geeta Devi, respondent No.2
and Mr. Deendayal Panwar, present in
person.
Mr. Deen Dayal Chitlangi, for
respondent Nos. 3 & 7
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order
01/03/2024
1. Heard learned Mr. K.S.Rajpurohit, learned counsel for the
petitioners, Smt. Geeta Devi (respondent No.2), Mr. Deendayal
[2024:RJ-JD:10484] (2 of 5) [CW-16696/2023]
Panwar (husband of respondent No.2) Present-in-person & Mr.
D.D.Chitlangi, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 & 7.
2. The present writ petition has been filed against the order
dated 11.09.2023 passed by learned Board of Revenue,
Rajasthan, Ajmer in Revision/T.A./6224/2022/Barmer, whereby
the revision petition filed by the respondent No.2 (Smt. Geeta
Devi) was allowed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the revision
petition was preferred by the respondent No.2- Smt. Geeta Devi,
against the order dated 27.10.2022 passed by the Assistant
Collector, Balotra in Revenue Suit No.41/2008, whereby, the
application preferred by her under Order 7 Rule 14 of the C.P.C.
was rejected.
4. Learned counsel submits that though learned Board of
Revenue had issued notices to the petitioners-non-applicants in
the revision petition but the notices were never served upon them
as reflected in the certified copies of order-sheets of the Board of
Revenue produced before this Court as Annexure-6. It is
contended that despite the Board of Revenue has noted in the
proceeding dated 01.08.2023 that the notices through registered
AD were issued long back and the same had not been received
and nobody has appeared on their behalf, therefore, the ex-parte
proceedings were undertaken while deciding the revision petition.
He, therefore, prays that the writ petition filed by the petitioners
may be allowed and the order dated 11.09.2023 passed by the
Board of Revenue, without giving any opportunity of hearing to
the petitioners may be quashed and set-aside.
[2024:RJ-JD:10484] (3 of 5) [CW-16696/2023]
5. Per contra, husband of respondent No.2, Present-in-person
submits that respondent No.2 has filed the reply to the writ
petition. Along with reply, she has placed the application (R/1),
whereby, the online track report of the service of notices of the
revision petition on the respondents therein was placed on record
before the Board of Revenue and, therefore, as per the online
track report, the notices of the revision petition stood
served/delivered on the respondents. He submits that despite
service of notices of revision petition, the petitioners did not
present themselves before the Board of Revenue and, therefore,
the ex-parte proceedings conducted by the Board of Revenue are
preferably justified. He further submits that the petitioners in one
way or other are adopting the procedure to cause delay in the
disposal of the suit pending before the learned trial Court. He,
therefore, submits that no interference is warranted in the order
dated 11.09.2023 passed by the Board of Revenue and prays that
the writ petition may be dismissed.
6. Mr. D. D. Chitlangi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the respondent Nos. 3 & 7 submits that respondent Nos. 3 & 7
have also not received copy of the notices of the revision petition,
therefore, they were unable to present themselves before the
Board of Revenue.
7. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and gone
through the relevant record of the case including the impugned
order passed by the Board of Revenue.
8. Certified copies of the order-sheets of the Board of Revenue
clearly show that the notices were issued to the respondents in
the revision petition, however, in the order-sheet dated
[2024:RJ-JD:10484] (4 of 5) [CW-16696/2023]
24.07.2023, in the margin of the order-sheet itself, it was written
that AD was not received and, therefore, the next date was
granted. On the next date i.e. 28.07.2023, the matter was placed
on 01.08.2023.
9. The order-sheet dated 01.08.2023 reads as under :-
"01-08-23
izkFkhZ Lo;a xhrknsoh o muds eq[R;kjvke nhun;ky mi-
vizkFkhZx.k dks jft- ,Mh uksfVl tkjh gq, cgqr vf/kd le; gks
pqdk gS] ,Mh vizkIr gS vkSj mudh vksj ls dksbZ mifLFkr ughaA
izkFkhZ dh ,d i{kh; cgl fuxjkuh ds xq.kokxq.k ij lquh xbZA
i=koyh okLrs fu.kZ; fjtoZ dh tkrh gSA
,l-Mh@
lnL;
jktLo e.My jktLFkku
vtesjA"
10. A bare perusal of the order-sheet dated 01.08.2023 shows
that the Board of Revenue has observed that the AD of the notices
have not been received back and, since, nobody was present on
behalf of the respondents, therefore, the matter was heard ex-
parte and judgment was reserved.
11. In the considered view of this Court, the learned Board of
Revenue was not right in deciding the matter ex-parte as the
factum of service of notices upon the respondents in the revision
petition has not been properly taken note of while ex-parte
deciding the revision petition despite the fact that revisionist-
respondent No.2 herein had placed on record the online track
report of the service of notices.
12. This Court further takes note of the fact that there is no
discussion about the service of notices upon the respondents in
the order dated 11.09.2023, whereby the revision petition has
been decided by the learned Board of Revenue.
[2024:RJ-JD:10484] (5 of 5) [CW-16696/2023]
13. Therefore, in view of the discussion made above, the order
dated 11.09.2023 passed by the Board of Revenue is quashed and
set-aside and the matter is remanded back to the Board of
Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer to decide the same afresh after taking
note of the factum of the service of notices upon the respondents
in the revision petition.
14. The Counsel for the petitioners accepts the notices of revision
on behalf of Champa Lal, Pukhraj & Daulat Ram (petitioners
herein), therefore, service qua them is complete. Mr. D.D.
Chitlangi, learned counsel accept notices of the revision petition
before the Board of Revenue on behalf of respondent Nos.4 & 8
(Smt. Narayani & Mohan Lal), therefore, service qua the
respondent Nos. 3 & 7 (respondents herein) of the revision
petition is also complete. For the rest of the respondents named in
the revision petition, the respondent No.2 (Smt. Geeta Devi) shall
produce the proof of service of notice in the revision petition on
the respondents. After completion of the service upon the rest of
the respondents in the revision petition, the Board of Revenue is
directed to decide the revision petition of the respondent No.2
(Smt. Geeta Devi) within a period of one month after giving an
opportunity of hearing to all the parties.
15. The present writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.
16. Misc. application seeking preponment of date is dismissed as
having become infructuous.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
213-AnilSingh/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
