Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 70 (RAJ)

Collector, Baran v. Naval Kishore Agrawal

2004-01-16

S.K.KESHOTE

body2004
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment of both the courts below. 2. The disputed property was 'nazul' property. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff respondent purchased the said property in open auction held by the Officer of the Government of Rajasthan on 3rd of August, 1982. A sale deed was also executed on sale of this property in dispute which was registered on 10th of august, 1982. The plaintiff respondent was put in possession of the suit property. 3. After 19 years of the sale of the property in dispute in favour of the plaintiff respondent, the Collector, Baran sought to cancel the sale deed. In this respect a notice was issued to the plaintiff respondent on 28th of August, 1998. On 12th of January, 1999 an adverse order was passed by the Collector, Baran against the plaintiff respondent which gave rise cause to him to file the suit for declaration. That suit has been decreed by the learned trial court and the same has been confirmed in the appeal. Thus, this second appeal. 4. It is really shocking and surprising that a citizen of the country who has bonafide purchased the suit property in open auction conducted by the Officer of the Government has been put to suffer for all these years as at one fine morning the Collector, Baran, thought of to cancel the sale. It is not only a simple auction but that has been confirmed and a registered sale deed has s been executed and the plaintiff respondent has also been put in possession. In my opinion, both the courts below are correct in their approach ti decree the suit filed by the plaintiff respondent. In the appeal no question of law much-less any substantial question does arise which calls for any interference in the judgments passed by the courts below. 5. In the result, this second appeal fails and the same is dismissed with costs which is quantified to Rs. 2000/- (Rupees two thousand). 6. Consequent upon the dismissal of the second appeal, the stay application filed therewith does not survive and the same is also dismissed.Second Appeal Dismissed. *******