[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Mohammad Ishaaq vs Maam Ali (2026:Rj-Jd:17579-Db) on 16 April, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:17579-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 458/2025
Mohammad Ishaaq S/o Milu Shah, Aged About 56 Years, Gram
Thukrana, Tehsil Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Maam Ali S/o Lune Khan, Resident Of 23G, Chunavarh
Kothi, Tehsil And District Sri Ganganagar.
2. State Government Through Tehsildar, Suratgarh
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sharad Kothari
Mr. Pranjul Mehta
For Respondent(s) : --
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT
Order
16/04/2026
1. The challenge is to the order passed by the learned Single
Judge dated 14.02.2025, whereby, it has upheld the orders passed
by the learned Revenue Appellate Authority dated 21.03.2014 and
the Board of Revenue dated 11.12.2024 and rejected the writ
petition filed by the petitioner upholding that appeal preferred by
the petitioner-appellant was beyond limitation.
2. Learned counsel submits that the appellant had earlier been
pursuing a remedy for declaration of tenancy of the concerned
land by instituting a suit on 15.11.1990 before the SDO. The SDO
decided the suit on 26.10.1995 and the appellant challenged the
said order before the Appellate Authority, namely, RAA by filing of
(Uploaded on 17/04/2026 at 11:21:23 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:17579-DB] (2 of 4) [SAW-458/2025]
appeal on 01.11.1995, which came to be finally decided on
24.04.1999.
3. He submits that in the interregnum period, an allotment
order was issued on 12.02.1997 in favour of the respondent,
which was not in his knowledge and, therefore, he could not
challenge the same at the relevant time. As soon as it was
brought to his knowledge, he immediately submitted a
representation in the year 2009 for cancellation of the allotment
order dated 12.02.1997 and thereafter appellant filed appeal
before RAA on 22.10.2010. The RAA rejected appeal solely on the
ground of limitation.
4. Learned counsel submits that there was no occasion to
dismiss the appeal on the ground of limitation as the issue was
alive and being pursued by the appellant in the Civil Suit as
mentioned hereinabove. Moreover, he submits that the allotment
order dated 12.02.1997 was not known to the appellant and as
soon as he came to know of the order, the appeal was filed. He
submits that an application for condonation of delay was also
moved before the concerned RAA, which was wrongly rejected and
also before the Board of Revenue, which too was rejected. In the
circumstances, the appeal ought to have been heard on merits
and the delay ought to have been condoned. More so, as the
appellant had been pursuing a wrong remedy and the provisions
of Section 14 of the Limitation Act would apply and the delay
ought to have been condoned.
5. Learned counsel submits that the learned Single Judge has
failed to take view of the aforesaid aspects, which has resulted in
(Uploaded on 17/04/2026 at 11:21:23 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:17579-DB] (3 of 4) [SAW-458/2025]
rejection of his writ petition. He prays that this Court ought to
condone the delay in filing of the appeal before the RAA and set
aside the consequential order.
6. We have carefully considered the submission and perused
the record as available before us.
7. Apparently, the petitioner was claiming tenancy on the land
for which he had filed a suit, which was dismissed and even in
appeal, he failed. No further challenge was made with regard to
claiming of tenancy. Thus, he had no stakes on the concerned
land.
8. At the same time, the State allotted the concerned land by
issuing an allotment order on 12.02.1997 to the respondent and
we would not accept the contention of the petitioner that he was
not having any knowledge of such an order, more so, when he was
actively claiming tenancy on the said land. He has remained silent
for more than 12 years. Even if his objection is treated to have
been raised in the year 2009, then too, the period of 12 years is
over by that time and therefore, taking into consideration the long
period of more than 12 years in filing of an appeal against the
order of allotment, which the RAA has rejected and the Board of
Revenue has again examined the aspect and reached to the same
conclusion. We also notice that the learned Single Judge has too
found order passed by the Board of Revenue as well as RAA to be
in accordance with law.
9. We further notice that contention of the respondent before
the learned Single Judge was to the effect that appellant was a
tresspasser on the land and was continuing to hold a possession in
(Uploaded on 17/04/2026 at 11:21:23 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:17579-DB] (4 of 4) [SAW-458/2025]
spite of rejection of his suit and appeal. Thus, he would be having
full knowledge of an allotment order having been issued in favour
of another person, who would be claiming possession on the said
property since 1997 itself but he failed to challenge the allotment
order and is attempting to claim that this fact came into his
knowledge only from 2009. A tresspasser, by one way or the
other, wants to take possession on the land for which he has no
rights. In such circumstances, even the principle of equity, which
is required to be taken into consideration while condoning the
delay also goes against him.
10. In all respect, we find that delay in filing of the appeal
cannot be condoned even with regard to the provisions of Section
14 of the Limitation Act. We find that claim of the petitioner for
condonation of delay under the said provisions also does not lie for
a suit filed by the petitioner for declaration of tenancy because
there was no attempt on his part except to raise representation
against an allotment order dated 12.02.1997 in the year 2009. It
cannot be said to be availing a wrongful remedy before he filed
the appeal. In view thereto, the order passed by the learned
Single Judge does not warrant any interference.
11. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
12. All the pending applications also stand disposed of.
(SANJEET PUROHIT),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACJ
8-poojadubey/-
(Uploaded on 17/04/2026 at 11:21:23 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
