Research › Browse › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

1995 DIGILAW 677 (RAJ)

Mokh Ram v. State of Rajasthan

1995-07-28

B.R.ARORA, D.C.DALELA

body1995
JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner(s) were having 150 and 249 Bighas of agricultural land, respectively, entered in his Khatedari. The Authorised Officer (S.D.O.), Hanumangarh, on the basis of the information obtained by him under Sub-sec. (2) Section 11 and after making enquiry issued the Draft Statements under Section 12 of the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973, on the petitioner(s) in respect of the land in excess of the ceiling are held by him. The petitioner and his adult son filed objections to the Draft Statements and after consideration of the objections filed by the petitioner and his adult son, the Authorised Officer (S.D.O.), Hanumangarh, by his order dated 21.11.75 held that the petitioner and his adult son are entitled to keep 62 Bighas eight Biswas and 149.18 Bighas of land in their possession and declared the remaining land as the surplus land held by them. He prepared the Final Statement under Section 13 of the Act and issued notices to the petitioners. The petitioners, in pursuance to the Final Statement issued by the Authorised Officer, filed an application on 5.12.75 and gave the particulars of the land which were in their possession and further submitted that. if any other land is found in their possession then the same may be acquired by the State. The Revenue Officer thereafter proceeded to acquire the excess land which was shown in the Khatedari possession of the petitioners but the same were in the cultivatory possession of the respondents No. 5 to 16 in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 267 of 1986 and respondents No. 5 to 9 in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 269 of 1986. These respondents, when came to know regarding the order passed by the Authorised Officer determining the ceiling area of the petitioners, filed applications under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Jamiindari and Biswadari Abolition Act, 1959, but their applications were dismissed by the concerned Court on 8.9.1977. Dissatisfied with the order passed by the Authorised Officer (S.D.O.), Hanumangarh, the respondents No. 5 to 16 and 5 to 9 in the aforesaid two writ petitions, respectively, filed the appeals before the Collector, Sri Ganganagar, which were transferred for disposal to the Additional Collector, Sri Ganganagar, who, by his orders dated 10.5.84 allowed the appeals filed by these respondents and directed to take possession over the land which is free from any incumbances. The Tehsildar, in pursuance to the orders passed by the Additional Collector, took steps for taking the possession over the land which were in possession of the petitioners. The appeals were not decided in the presence of the petitioners or their counsel and, therefore, as soon as the petitioners came to know regarding the orders passed by the Additional Collector in the appeals, they preferred appeals before the Board of Revenue, Ajmer. The appeals, filed by the petitioners, alongwith two other appellants, were dismissed by the Board of Revenue by the judgment dated 17.12.85. The appeals filed by the petitioners were not decided on merit but the same were decided by the Board of Revenue only on the ground of limitation. Alongwith the appeals filed by the petitioners, two more appeals were filed by Jeeta and Mokh Ram which were, also, dismissed by the Board of Revenue by this judgment. The petitioners, Jeeta and Mokh Ram preferred three writ petitions before this Court. The writ petition, filed by Jeeta Ram, bearing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 180 of 1986 (Jeeta and Ors. v. State & Ors.) was decided by this Court on 12.9.94. The writ petition filed by Jeeta was allowed, the order dated 17.12.85, passed by the learned Member of the Board of Revenue was dismissed, the delay in filing the appeal was condoned and the Board of Revenue was directed to decide the appeal on merit. 2. The judgment, passed by the learned Member of the Board of Revenue, has been set-aside in one of the appeals filed by similarly situated person and it has been held by the Division Bench of this Court that a sufficient cause has been shown by the petitioner for condonation of delay and the learned Member of the Board of Revenue was not justified in dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner on the ground of limitation. The appeals, filed by the petitioners, were barred by eleven days. Though the orders were passed in the presence of the learned counsel for the petitioners but the same were not communicated to the petitioners. The appeals, filed by the petitioners, were barred by eleven days. Though the orders were passed in the presence of the learned counsel for the petitioners but the same were not communicated to the petitioners. The petitioners had no knowledge of the orders passed by the Additional Collector and they came to know with respect to the orders passed by the Additional Collector only when the Tehsildar initiated the proceedings for taking possession of the alleged excess land which was in the possession of the petitioners. The affidavits, filed by the petitioners in support of the applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, were not controverted. In the absence of any counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it was expected that the learned Member of the Board of Revenue should have accepted the version given by them. A liberal approach should have been adopted by the learned Member of the Board of Revenue while considering the applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act as a litigant does not stand to the benefit by way of not filing the appeal in time. As such, dismissing the appeals on the ground of limitation and refusing to condone the delay may result in throwing away the meritorious matters on such technical ground. The petitioners have shown sufficient cause before the learned Member of the Board of Revenue for condonation of the delay but the learned Member of the Board of Revenue took a strict view and dismissed the appeals on the ground of limitation. The order Annexure- 4 dated 17.12.85, passed by the learned Member of the Board of Revenue, therefore, deserves to be quashed and set-aside. In the connected matter of Jeeta(supra), the appeal filed by Jeeta was allowed and the order passed by the learned Member of the Board of Revenue has been set-aside and this also, provides a good ground for setting-aside the judgment passed by the Board of Revenue in the appeals filed by the petitioners, also. 3. In the result, the writ petitions, filed by the petitioners, are allowed. The orders Annexure-4 dated 17.12.85, passed by the learned Member of the Board of Revenue in both the writ petition are quashed and set-aside and the delay in filing the appeals before the Board of Revenue, is condoned. The parties are directed to appear before the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer, on September 13, 1995. The orders Annexure-4 dated 17.12.85, passed by the learned Member of the Board of Revenue in both the writ petition are quashed and set-aside and the delay in filing the appeals before the Board of Revenue, is condoned. The parties are directed to appear before the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer, on September 13, 1995. The Board of Revenue is not required to issue notices to the parties. It is expected that the Board of Revenue will consider and decide the appeals on merit within three months, as far as possible, from the date of submission of the certified copy of this order. The Office is directed to send a certified copy of this judgment to the Registrar, Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer, for listing the case on 13.9.1995.Petition allowed. *******