Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Bhanwar Singh And Ors vs Bhom Singh And Ors. (2025:Rj-Jd:40693) on 11 September, 2025

Author: Kuldeep Mathur

Bench: Kuldeep Mathur

[2025:RJ-JD:40693]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3376/2018

1. Bhanwar Singh Son Of Late Shri Khet Singh, aged about
48 years.
2. Padam Singh Son Of Late Shri Khet Singh, aged about 56
years.
3. Sagat Singh Son Of Late Shri Khet Singh, aged about 53
years.
4. Khinv Singh Son Of Late Shri Khet Singh, aged about 51
years.
5. Gaje Singh Son Of Late Shri Khet Singh, aged about 46
years.
6. Smt. Bhanwar Kanwar Daughter Of Late Shri Khet Singh,
aged about 57 years.
7. Smt. Uma Kanwar Wife Of Late Shri Khet Singh, Petitioner
85 years,
petitioner Nos. 2 To 7 Are Through Their Power Of
Attorney Holder Shri Bhanwar Singh Son Of Late Shri
Khet Singh,
All are Residents Of Kolu, Tehsil Phalodi, District Jodhpur.
----Petitioners
Versus
Respondents/Plaintiffs
1. Bhom Singh S/o Late Shri Bheru Singh
2. Arjun Singh S/o Late Shri Bheru Singh
3. Madho Singh S/o Late Shri Bheru Singh
4. Narpat Singh S/o Late Shri Bheru Singh
5. Smt. Suwa Kanwar Widow of Late Shri Bheru Singh,
respondent Nos. 1 to 5 are R/o Kolu Rathora, Tehsil
Phalodi, District Jodhpur.
Proforma respondents/ Defendendants
6. Smt. Hawa Kanwar Widow Of Late Shri Kalyan Singh
7. Bhanwar Singh S/o Late Shri Kalyan Singh
8. Gayad Singh S/o Late Shri Kalyan Singh
9. Ganga Singh S/o Late Shri Kalyan Singh
10. Smt. Sau Kanwar D/o Late Shri Kalyan Singh
11. Smt. Gajju Kanwar D/o Late Shri Kalyan Singh

(Uploaded on 14/09/2025 at 11:57:00 AM)
(Downloaded on 15/09/2025 at 07:10:01 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:40693] (2 of 8) [CW-3376/2018]

12. Smt. Rasu Kanwar D/o Late Shri Kalyan Singh
13. Smt. Barju Kanwar D/o Late Shri Kalyan Singh
14. Smt. Saru Kanwar D/o Late Shri Kalyan Singh
15. Smt. Sagu Kanwar D/o Late Shri Kalyan Singh
16. Bhur Singh S/o Late Shri Vijay Singh
17. Ummed Singh S/o Late Shri Vijay Singh
18. Sher Singh S/o Shri Roop Singh
19. Smt. Ganga Kanwar W/o Shri Roop Sing, Respondents
Nos. 6 to 19 are R/o Village Kolu, Tehsil Phalodi, District
Jodhpur.
20. State of Rajasthan through Tehsildar, Shergarh, District
Jodhpur.
21. Sub- Divisional Officer- cum- Assistant Collector,
Shergarh, District Jodhpur.
22. Revenue Appellate Authority, Jodhpur
23. Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer through its,
Registrar
----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Moti Singh
For Respondent(s) : -

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

Order

11/09/2025

By way of filing the instant writ petition under Articles 226

and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed

for the following reliefs:-

"It is therefore most humbly and respectfully prayed that:-

a) by an appropriate writ, order or direction the writ petition filed by the petitioners/defendant No. 1 may kindly be allowed.

b) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, impugned Judgment dated 30.01.2018 (Annx-21) passed by the learned Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer in Appeal/Decree/TA/4723/2015/Jodhpur titled as "Smt. Hawa Kanwar & ors. Vs. Bhom Singh & ors." and the Judgments and Decrees dated 17.07.2015 (Annx-19) passed by the learned

(Uploaded on 14/09/2025 at 11:57:00 AM)

[2025:RJ-JD:40693] (3 of 8) [CW-3376/2018]

Revenue Appellate Authority, Jodhpur in Appeal/Decree/ Jodhpur/ 038/2014 titled as "LR's of Late Kayna Singh & ors. Vs. Bhom Singh & ors." as well as dated 07.05.2014 (Annx-15) passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Officer cum Assistant Collector, Shergarh, District Jodhpur in Revenue Original Suit No. 41/2004 titled as "Bhom Singh & ors. Vs. kalyan Singh & ors." may kindly be declared illegal and accordingly, be quashed and set aside.

c) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the revenue suit (Annx.11) filed by the respondents/plaintiffs may also kindly be ordered to be dismissed as prayed for throughout with costs.

d) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the consequential Mutation Entry No. 923 dated 12.05.2014 made in the Mutation Register of Village Gumanpura (Annx. 16) may also kindly be quashed and set aside.

e) Any other appropriate order, which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners.

f) Cost of the writ petition may please be awarded in favour of the petitioners."

2. Briefly stated facts of the case as disclosed by the petitioners

in the present writ petition are that respondents/plaintiffs filed a

revenue suit under Sections 88, 188 and 53 of the Rajasthan

Tenancy Act, 1955 (the Act of 1955) against the

petitioners/defendants as well as respondents/defendants before

the Court of learned Sub Divisional Officer, Shergarh, District

Jodhpur (the learned S.D.O.) bearing revenue original suit

No.41/2004 titled as "Bhom Singh and Ors. v. Kalyan Singh &

Ors." stating inter alia that at the time of settlement ½ nd share in

the land situated in Khasra No.918 ad measuring 215 bigha,

Khasra No.925 ad measuring 336.18 bigha and in Khasra No.925

ad measuring 9.14 bigha was wrongly entered in the name of

forefathers of the petitioners/defendants, whereas, they were

having possession and cultivation over ¼th share only which they

had sold. In the suit, it was further pleaded that the ancestors of

respondents/plaintiffs were in possession of the remaining land of

disputed Khasras and had also paid the lagaan thereof. The

respondents/plaintiffs thus prayed before the learned S.D.O. for

(Uploaded on 14/09/2025 at 11:57:00 AM)

[2025:RJ-JD:40693] (4 of 8) [CW-3376/2018]

giving relief of declaration, partition and permanent injunction

with respect to the land in dispute. The learned S.D.O. after

completing the trial, vide judgment dated 07.05.2014 decreed the

suit of the respondents/plaintiffs and ordered that the

respondents/plaintiffs are declared khatedar tenant of 215 bigha

land out of total 346.12 bigha land of Khasra No.918 and Khasra

No.925 with a further direction to delete the names of the

petitioners/defendants from the revenue record and by way of

permanent injunction, a direction was further issued that the

petitioners/defendants will not interfere in the possession and

cultivation of the respondents/plaintiffs over the said 215 bigha

land either directly or through any other means.

2. The Appeal No.038/14 titled as "LRs of Kalyan Singh v.

Bhom Singh & Ors." preferred by the defendants/petitioners under

Section 223 of the Act of 1955 before the learned Rent Appellate

Authority (hereinafter 'the learned RAA'), Jodhpur came to be

rejected vide judgment dated 17.07.2025. The Second Appeal

under Section 224 of the Act of 1955 filed against the impugned

judgment of learned S.D.O. and learned RAA, Jodhpur before

Board of Revenue Rajasthan also came to be dismissed vide order

dated 30.01.2018.

3. Drawing attention of the Court towards the impugned

judgments passed by the learned S.D.O., the learned RAA, the

Board of Revenue and other documents placed on record so also

ground Nos. iii, iv, v, vi of the writ petition, learned counsel for the

petitioner submitted that in the present case, on 15.02.2005 on

account of non-appearance of respondents/plaintiffs and their

counsel, the suit preferred before the learned S.D.O. was

(Uploaded on 14/09/2025 at 11:57:00 AM)

[2025:RJ-JD:40693] (5 of 8) [CW-3376/2018]

dismissed for want of prosecution and the order sheet was duly

signed, however, later, without any application for restoration of

the suit, the matter was taken up and a next date in the matter

was fixed. He further submitted that when the suit was not fixed

for final arguments on 21.03.2014, the learned counsel for the

petitioner/defendants sought an adjournment whereupon next

date was fixed on 25.03.2014. On the aforesaid date also, final

arguments could not be heard as the presiding officer was busy.

The matter was then adjourned to 02.05.2014 and thereafter

06.05.2014. On 06.05.2014, in the order sheets it was noted that

no body was present on behalf of the petitioners/defendants and

the matter was adjourned to 08.05.2014. Learned counsel

submitted that though the matter was adjourned to 08.05.2014

for final arguments but the judgment was pronounced on

07.05.2014. Learned counsel submitted that these facts are

sufficient to indicate that learned S.D.O. extended undue favour to

the respondents/plaintiffs and has passed the impugned order

dated 07.05.2014 (Annexure-15) in an illegal, arbitrary and unjust

manner without following principles of natural justice. Learned

counsel submitted that that aforesaid facts were also brought to

the notice of learned RAA as well as the Board of Revenue, but

while passing the impugned orders dated 17.07.2015 (Annexure-

19) and 30.01.2018 (Annexure-21) respectively, the same have

also been totally ignored. He thus prayed that the matter may be

remanded back to the learned S.D.O. for fresh consideration.

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the

material available on record.

(Uploaded on 14/09/2025 at 11:57:00 AM)

[2025:RJ-JD:40693] (6 of 8) [CW-3376/2018]

5. The grounds raised by the petitioners in ground Nos. (iii),

(iv), (v) and (vi) are reproduced herein below for ready

reference:-

"That the very outset, it would be pertinent to mention here that a perusal of the Order dated 15.02.2005 (Annx.12) shows that on account of non-appearance of the respondents/plaintiffs and their counsel, the order was passed in the open court and the suit was dismissed for non- prosecution as well as non-appearance The said order-sheet dismissing the suit was duly signed by the learned S.DO Thereafter, on appearance of the counsel for the respondents/ plaintiffs, the learned S.D.O despite signing the order-sheet, taken up the matter on the very day and fixed the next date in the matter restoring the suit without even there being any application for restoration moved in this regard, which is totally bad in the eyes of law and amounts to rendering the entire proceedings initiated in the suit subsequently as vitiated. But without even considering this aspect of the matter, the learned R.A.A. as well as B.O.R. have dismissed the appeals filed by the petitioners/defendants, which too is illegal, unjust and perverse. Thus, this being the position, impugned judgments (Annx. 15, 19 & 21) passed by the learned courts below are not sustainable and therefore, same deserve to be quashed and set aside.

iv) That further, as per the position of law, the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure are applicable on the suit instituted under the provisions of Rajasthan Tenancy Act Thus, in such and the proceedings initiated therein.

circumstances, as per the provisions of C.P.C. more particularly Order 9 Rule 3 & 4 of C.P.C., the respondents/plaintiffs were required to either bring fresh suit or move an appropriate application for restoration of the suit. But in the case in hand, it is an admitted position that after signing the order-sheet dismissing the suit for non- prosecution, it was restored without there being an application moved in this respect, which is totally bad in the eyes of law and amounts to rendering the entire proceedings initiated in the suit thereafter as vitiated. But without even considering this aspect of the matter also, the learned R.A.A as well as B.OR. have dismissed the appeals filed by the petitioners/defendants. which too is illegal, unjust and perverse. Thus, this being the position, impugned judgments (Annx. 15, 19 & 21) passed by the learned courts below are not sustainable and therefore, same deserve to be quashed and set aside.

v) That further, it would also be pertinent to mention here that a perusal of the record shows that the suit was

(Uploaded on 14/09/2025 at 11:57:00 AM)

[2025:RJ-JD:40693] (7 of 8) [CW-3376/2018]

fixed for final arguments on 21.03.2014, on which date, the counsel for the petitioners/defendants was busy and therefore, the matter was adjourned to 25.03.2014, on which date, the Presiding Officer was busy in the Government Duty and therefore, the matter was adjourned to 02.05.2014 and thereafter 06.05.2014. On 06.05.2014, it was drawn in the order-sheet that the counsel for the petitioners/defendants is not present, however, the written submission on behalf of the respondents/plaintiffs were taken on record and the matter was fixed for 08.05.2014. The said written submissions were in fact filed on 28.03.2014 and thereafter, the matter was adjourned to 15.04.2014 and 02.05.2014 but the same were not taken on record Thereafter, though, the matter was fixed for 08.05.2014 but before that date, the judgment was pronounced decreeing the suit on 07.05.2014 itself. It shows that the suit was decided even without hearing the arguments of the petitioners/defendants. Thus, this being the position. impugned judgment (Annx 15) passed by the learned S.D.O. is totally illegal, unjust, perverse and contrary to the provisions of law. But in spite of the same, both the learned R.A.A. as well as B.O.R. have totally failed to appreciate this aspect and have dismissed the appeals filed by the petitioners/ defendants, which too is bad in the eyes of law. Thus, looking to this aspect also, impugned judgments (Annx. 15, 19 & 21) passed by the learned courts below are not sustainable and therefore, same deserve to be quashed and set aside.

vi) That even otherwise, it would be pertinent to mention here that neither copy of the written submission was supplied to the counsel for the petitioners/defendants and nor they were afforded an opportunity to put forward their arguments, which is evident from the fact that on 06.05.2014, it was duly mentioned in the order-sheet that no one is present on behalf of the petitioners/defendants and the matter was accordingly adjourned to 08.05.2014 but before that date, the judgment was pronounced on 07.05.2014 itself, in which the attendance of the counsel for the defendants too was marked. It goes to show that the judgment impugned was passed by the learned S.D.O. before the next date fixed in the matter and that too without hearing the arguments of the petitioners/defendants, which was only in order to extend undue benefit to the respondents/plaintiffs, which is nothing but totally illegal, unjust, perverse and contrary to the principles of natural justice. But in spite of the same, both the learned R.A.A. as well as B.O.R. have totally failed to appreciate this aspect and have dismissed the appeals filed by the petitioners/ defendants, which too is bad in the eyes of law. Thus, this being the position, impugned judgments (Annx.15, 19 & 21)

(Uploaded on 14/09/2025 at 11:57:00 AM)

[2025:RJ-JD:40693] (8 of 8) [CW-3376/2018]

passed by the learned courts below are not sustainable and therefore, same deserve to be quashed and set aside."

6. The notice of writ petition has already been served upon the

respondents but nobody has appeared on their behalf to argue the

matter. The ground Nos. iii, iv, v, vi of the writ petition thus

remained uncontroverted. This Court in view thereof has no

hesitation in coming to a conclusion that the petitioners were

indeed not afforded a fair opportunity of hearing the matter by the

learned S.D.O. It is also to be noted that the learned RAA and

Board of Revenue have also failed to record any finding with

regard to denial of fair opportunity to defend the matter to the