Rajasthan High Court
Mohan Lal Son Of Late Shri Ladu Ram vs Suresh Chand Jain Son Of Shri Fateh Chand ... on 6 September, 2024
Author: Pankaj Bhandari
Bench: Pankaj Bhandari, Vinod Kumar Bharwani
[2024:RJ-JP:36637-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 34/2022
Mohan Lal Son Of Late Shri Ladu Ram, R/o House No. 115,
Village Badhdevri (Mansarovar), Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur
(Rajasthan).
----Appellant
Versus
1. Suresh Chand Jain Son Of Shri Fateh Chand Jain, Aged
About 58 Years, Representative M/s Fatehchand Estate
Private Limited, Registration No. 3872, Mittal Bhawan,
Hari Marg, Civil Lines, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
2. Board Of Revenue For Rajasthan, Ajmer Through Its
Registrar.
3. State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar Sanganer, District
Jaipur (Rajasthan)
4. Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur.
5. Sub-Divisional Officer, Sanganer District Jaipur.
6. Assistant Settlement Officer, Sanganer, Jaipur.
7. Anil Kumar S/o Lt. Sh. Ladu Ram, (Deleted By The Order
Dated 22.9.2014 Passed In The Writ Petition)
8. Ramesh Kumar S/o Lt. Sh. Ladu Ram, (Since Deceased
Through Lrs)
8/1. Sushila Devi, W/o Lt. Sh. Ramesh Kumar
8/2. Kishan Bairwa S/o Lt. Sh. Ramesh Kumar, Through
Guardian Mother Shushila Devi.
8/3. Anshu Bairwa S/o Lt. Sh. Ramesh Kumar, Through
Guardian Mother Sushila Devi.
9. Raju @ Rajulal, (Deceased) Through L.rs.
9/1. Smt. Gita Devi, Wife Of Late Shri Raju @ Rajulal
9/2. Shivani Kumari D/o Late Shri Raju @ Rajulal, Through
Guardian Mother Smt. Gita Devi.
9/3. Mahendra S/o Late Shri Raju @ Rajulal, Through Guardian
Mother Smt. Gita Devi.
9/4. Lucky Kumar Son Of Late Shri Raju @ Rajulal, Through
Guardian Mother Smt. Gita Devi.
10. Prabhu Dayal, Son Of Late Shri Laduram
(Downloaded on 09/09/2024 at 09:01:12 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:36637-DB] (2 of 11) [SAW-34/2022]
11. Rampyari Wife Of Late Shri Laduram (Deleted),
Respondents No. 7 To 11, Resident Of Village Badhdevri
(Mansarovar), Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur
(Rajasthan).
12. Lalita Devi D/o Late Shri Ladu Ram, Wife Of Shri Ashok
Kumar, R/o Kanota Bawri, Tehsil Bassi, District Jaipur
(Rajasthan).
13. Santosh D/o Late Shri Ladu Ram W/o Shri Mohan Lal, R/o
Jasla Ki Bawri, Purani Basti, Near Chandpole, Jaipur
(Rajasthan).
----Respondents
Connected With
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 37/2022
1. Raju @ Rajulal, (Deceased) Through L.rs.
1/1. Smt. Gita Devi Wife Of Late Shri Raju @ Rajulal, Aged
About 36 Years, R/o Village Badhdevri (Mansarovar),
Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur
1/2. Shivani Kumari D/o Late Shri Raju @ Rajulal, Aged About
15 Years, Through Guardian Mother Gita Devi, R/o Village
Badhdevri (Mansarovar), Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur
1/3. Mahendra Kumar S/o Late Shri Raju @ Rajulal, Aged
About 14 Years, Through Guardian Mother Gita Devi, R/o
Village Badhdevri (Mansarovar), Tehsil Sanganer, District
Jaipur
1/4. Lucky Kumar Son Of Late Shri Raju @ Rajulal, Aged About
11 Years, Through Guardian Mother Gita Devi, R/o Village
Badhdevri (Mansarovar), Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur
----Appellants
Versus
1. Suresh Chand Jain Son Of Shri Fateh Chand Jain, Aged
About 63 Years, Representative M/s Fatehchand Estate
Private Limited, Registration No. 3872, Mittal Bhawan,
Hari Marg, Civil Lines, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
2. Board Of Revenue For Rajasthan, Ajmer Through Its
Registrar.
3. State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar Sanganer, District
Jaipur (Rajasthan)
4. Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur.
[2024:RJ-JP:36637-DB] (3 of 11) [SAW-34/2022]
5. Sub Divisional Officer, Sanganer District Jaipur.
6. Assistant Settlement Officer, Sanganer, Jaipur.
7. Mohan Lal, Son Of Late Shri Laduram
8. Anil Kumar Son Of Late Shri Laduram, (Deleted By The
Order Dated 22.9.2014 Passed In The Writ Petition)
9. Ramesh Kumar, Son Of Late Shri Laduram, (Deceased)
Through L.rs.
9/1. Smt. Sushila Devi, Wife Of Late Shri Ramesh Kumar
9/2. Kishan Bairwa, Son Of Late Shri Ramesh Kumar Through
Guaridan Mother Sushila Devi
9/3. Anshu Bairwa Son Of Late Shri Ramesh Kumar, Through
Guaridan Mother Sushila Devi
10. Prabhu Dayal, Son Of Late Shri Laduram
11. Rampyari Wife Of Late Shri Laduram (Deleted),
Respondents No. 7 To 11, Resident Of Village Badhdevri
(Mansarovar), Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur
(Rajasthan).
12. Lalita Devi D/o Late Shri Ladu Ram, Wife Of Shri Ashok
Kumar, R/o Kanota Bawri, Tehsil Bassi, District Jaipur
(Rajasthan).
13. Santosh D/o Late Shri Ladu Ram W/o Shri Mohan Lal, R/o
Jasla Ki Bawri, Purani Basti, Near Chandpole, Jaipur
(Rajasthan).
----Respondents
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 488/2022
Prabhu Dayal S/o Late Shri Ladu Ram, And Legal Representative
Of Ladu Ram S/o Kishanaram Bairwa (Deceased), Resident Of
Village Badhdevri (Mansarovar), Tehsil Sanganer, Dist. Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Suresh Chand Jain S/o Shri Fateh Chand Jain,
Representative M/s Fatehchand Estate Pvt. Ltd.
Registration No. 3872, Mittal Bhawan, Hari Marg, Civil
Line, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Board Of Revenue For Rajasthan, Ajmer Through Its
Registrar.
[2024:RJ-JP:36637-DB] (4 of 11) [SAW-34/2022]
3. State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar, Sanganer, Dist.
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
4. Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
5. Sub Divisional Officer, Sanganer, Dist. Jaipur.
6. Assistant Settlement Officer, Sanganer, Jaipur.
7. Mohan Lal, S/o Late Shri Ladu Ram
8. Anil Kumar, S/o Late Ladu Ram
9. Ramesh kumar S/o Late Shri Laduram since deceased
through Lrs.
9/1. Sushila, W/o Ramesh Kumar
9/2. Kishan, S/o Ramesh Kumar
9/3. Hanshu, S/o Ramesh Kumar
10. Raju @ Rajulal S/o Late Shri Laduram, Since Deceased
Through Lrs.
10/1. Geeta, W/o Rajulal
10/2. Mahendra Kumar, S/o Rajulal
10/3. Lucky, S/o Rajulal
10/4. Shivani, S/o Rajulal
11. Rampyari Widow Of Late Shri Ladu Ram, All Above
Respondents No. 7 To 9 Are Resident Of Village
Badhadevri (Mansarovar) Tehsil Sanganer, Dist. Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
12. Lalita Devi D/o Late Shri Ladu Ram W/o Shri Ashok
Kumar, Legal Representative Of Ladu Ram, Resident Of
Kanota Bawri, Tehsil Bassi, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
13. Santosh D/o Late Shri Ladu Ram W/o Shri Mohan Lal,
Legal Representative Of Ladu Ram, Resident Of Jasla Ki
Bawri, Purani Basti, Near Chandpole, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. R.K. Mathur, Sr. Adv. assisted by
Mr. Aditya Kiran Mathur in SAW
: Mr. Ved Prakash Sogarwal in SAW
: Mr. Hari Pratap Singh for
Mr. Abhimanyu Singh Yaduvanshi in
[2024:RJ-JP:36637-DB] (5 of 11) [SAW-34/2022]
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kamlakar Sharma, Sr. Adv.
assisted by Mr. Madhusudan
Rajpurohit in SAW Nos.34/2022 &
: Mr. Hemant Taylor in SAW
: Mr. Brijesh Methi &
Mr. Pradeep Vishnoi in SAW
: Mr. Nitin Jain in SAW No.488/2022
For State : Ms Shikha Sharma for
Mr. G.S. Gill, AAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI
Judgment
Reserved on: 31/08/2024
Pronounced on: 06/09/2024
(Per Pankaj Bhandari, J)
1. Appellants have preferred these appeals aggrieved by the
order dated 24.11.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge,
whereby the review petitions filed by the appellants/review
petitioners were dismissed.
2. It is contended by Shri R.K. Mathur, learned Senior Advocate,
assisted by Mr. Aditya Kiran Mathur for the appellants that the
learned Single Judge allowed S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.8209/2013, filed by Suresh Chand Jain, vide order dated
31.05.2018 without affording opportunity of hearing to the
parties. Appellants challenged the order dated 31.05.2018 by
filing D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.821/2018, which was
decided by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated
20.07.2018 and the appellants were permitted to approach the
learned Single Judge. It was mentioned in the order that if the
[2024:RJ-JP:36637-DB] (6 of 11) [SAW-34/2022]
review petitions are preferred before the learned Single Judge, the
learned Single Judge will consider and decide the same after
hearing the parties. It is contended that thereafter, the review
petitions were filed before the learned Single Judge, however, the
same were dismissed without hearing the parties.
3. It is further contended that since no one had put in
appearance on behalf of the review petitioners, the court should
have dismissed the review petitions in default rather than deciding
the same on merits. It is contended that the grounds raised in the
review petitions were not mentioned in the order dated
24.11.2021. It is also contended that the land in dispute was sold
by Narmada Yadav, who was a member of Scheduled Caste and
any sale made by the member of Scheduled Caste was hit by
Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. Reliance in this
regard has been placed on Rajasthan Housing Board v. New
Pink City Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd.: (2015) 7 SCC 601.
4. It is contended that the learned Single Judge was not
justified in deciding the review petitions on merits in absence of
counsel for the review petitioners. Reliance in this regard is placed
on Ghanshyam Das Gupta v. Makhan Lal: 2012 SAR (Civil)
785. Reliance is also placed on Roshan Lal v. State of Punjab &
Ors.: (2020) 20 SCC 742, wherein it was held that the High
Court should, while deciding the review petition, advert to the
contentions made in the review petition.
5. Our attention has been drawn to Order 41 Rule 17 CPC which
is the provision with regard to dismissal of appeal in absence of
parties.
[2024:RJ-JP:36637-DB] (7 of 11) [SAW-34/2022]
6. Mr. Kamlakar Sharma, learned Senior Advocate assisted by
Mr. Madhusudan Rajpurohit, appearing for respondent No.1 Suresh
Chand Jain, has vehemently opposed the Special Appeals (Writ). It
is contended that initially, the order was passed by the learned
Single Judge on 31.05.2018 when the Advocates were on strike
and the learned Single Judge was competent to decide the case.
Reliance in this regard has been placed on Ramom Services Pvt.
Ltd. v. Subhash Kapoor & Ors.: (2001) 1 SCC 118, wherein
the Apex Court held that when the Advocate engaged by a party is
on strike, there is no obligation on the part of the court either to
wait or to adjourn the case on that account.
7. It is also contended that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Mahabir Prasad Singh v. Jacks Aviation Pvt. Ltd.:
AIR 1999 SC 287 has held that no court is obliged to adjourn a
case because of strike call given by any association of advocates
or a decision to boycott the courts either in general or any
particular court. It is the solemn duty of every court to proceed
with the judicial business during court hours. No court should yield
to pressure tactics or boycott calls or any kind of browbeating.
8. It is contended that the learned Single Judge has properly
dealt with the entire material while allowing the writ petition and
has come to the conclusion that Ladu Ram was only a
representative of M/s. Fatehchand Estate Pvt. Ltd. and this fact is
apparent from perusal of sale deed and the revenue records
prepared thereafter. It is further contended that the sale
consideration was also paid by M/s. Fatehchand Estate Pvt. Ltd. It
is contended that the orders of Sub-Divisional Officer and the
Divisional Commissioner were in favour of Suresh Chand Jain,
[2024:RJ-JP:36637-DB] (8 of 11) [SAW-34/2022]
however, the Board of Revenue noted that the property was
purchased by Ladu Ram, which was an incorrect fact.
9. It is also contended that Narmada Yadav was not a member
of Scheduled Caste. A notification issued in this regard was placed
before the learned Single Judge. There was no counter to the
same by the appellants. It is also contended that right from the
date of sale deed dated 18.02.1987 till the demise of Ladu Ram in
2002, he had never objected to the sale deed, wherein it was
clearly mentioned that he was a representative of M/s. Fatehchand
Estate Pvt. Ltd. It is contended that the learned Single Judge has
rightly appreciated the material and has committed no error in
allowing the writ petition filed by Suresh Chand Jain.
10. It is also contended that the State Government has not
challenged the order passed by the learned Single Judge on
31.05.2018 and except for present three review petitioners, no
one has challenged the said order including daughter and widow of
Ladu Ram. It is further contended that the present review
petitioners have sold the property vide registered sale deed, copy
of which has been annexed with the reply to the review petition as
Annexure-R/1 and they are contesting the present review petitions
as proxy to the purchaser.
11. We have considered the contentions.
12. In the present appeal, the appellants have challenged the
order dated 31.05.2018 passed in writ petition as well as the
order dated 24.11.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in
review petitions.
13. Present is a case where in the original sale deed of the year
1987, name of Ladu Ram was mentioned as representative of M/s.
[2024:RJ-JP:36637-DB] (9 of 11) [SAW-34/2022]
Fatehchand Estate Pvt. Ltd. Entire sale consideration was paid by
M/s. Fatehchand Estate Pvt. Ltd. and in revenue records also,
Ladu Ram was mentioned as representative of M/s. Fatehchand
Estate Pvt. Ltd. Nowhere in the sale deed or in revenue records,
Ladu Ram has been shown as owner or Khatedar of land in
dispute. However, the Board of Revenue, considering Ladu Ram as
owner, had allowed the appeal filed by legal representatives of
Ladu Ram, which fact was properly noticed by the learned Single
Judge while deciding the writ petition on 31.05.2018. After having
challenged the order dated 31.05.2018 before the Division Bench,
review petitioners sought permission to approach the learned
Single Judge and the special appeal was disposed of permitting
the review petitioners to file review petition. The review
petitioners did not appear before the learned Single Judge on
24.11.2021 when the review petitions were listed for hearing. The
learned Single Judge heard the senior counsel appearing for the
respondents and after taking into consideration the factual aspects
and the fact that there was no apparent error on the face of
record, dismissed the review petitions.
14. After having devoted over three hours in hearing the appeal
and having heard at length the facts of the case and contentions
of learned counsel for the respondents with regard to the merits of
the case and right of the appellants to challenge the order passed
by the learned Single Judge in writ petition, learned Senior
Advocate for the appellants stated that he wants to confine his
arguments to the order passed by the learned Single Judge in
review petitions. This court offered the learned Senior Advocate
[2024:RJ-JP:36637-DB] (10 of 11) [SAW-34/2022]
appearing for the appellants to address on main appeal, but he
was not keen to do so.
15. So far as, the contention of the learned counsel for the
appellants that initial sale deed was hit by Section 42 of the
Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 is concerned, the same has no force
for the very reason that the sale deed was executed by Narmada
Yadav who is not a member of Scheduled Caste. Consequently, the
judgment cited by the learned counsel for the appellants in
Rajasthan Housing Board v. New Pink City Nirman Sahkari
Samiti Ltd. (supra) has no applicability to the facts of this case.
16. We are of the considered view that the review petitioners
have unnecessarily protracted the litigation. On perusal of the sale
deed and revenue records, it is evident that Ladu Ram was not the
owner of the property, he was only a representative of M/s.
Fatehchand Estates Pvt. Ltd. and the company was the true owner.
Ladu Ram never objected to the sale deed of 1987 till he expired
in 2002. His legal representatives have no right, whatsoever, in
the property in question and it is a proxy litigation on behalf of
purchasers to whom they sold the property, pending litigation. We
are of the concerned view that Order 41 Rule 17 CPC has no
applicability to application for review of order passed under writ
jurisdiction and in absence of Counsel for parties, the court is not
required to dismiss in default and court can decide the review
application. In totality of facts, we are not inclined to entertain the
appeal qua the order dated 24.11.2021 passed by the learned
Single Judge dismissing the review petitions filed by the
appellants/review petitioners.
[2024:RJ-JP:36637-DB] (11 of 11) [SAW-34/2022]
17. In view of above, the appeals are dismissed.
18. Pending applications, if any, also stand dismissed.
(VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J (PANKAJ BHANDARI),J
Govind/
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
