Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 864 (RAJ)

Devi Singh v. Gopal

2006-03-17

R.N.ARVIND

body2006
Honble ARVIND, M.—This is a transfer application under section 233 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 to transfer appeal titled as Gopal vs. Devi Singh to some other competent court. 2. Briefly, the facts of this case are that the applicant filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction before the learned Asstt. Collector (Headquarter) for the land bearing khasra No. 7/47/2 of village Bhedola against the non-applicants, which was decreed in favour of the applicant on 30.3.2002. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 30.3.2002, present non-applicants filed an appeal before the learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Sawai Madhopur who has heard the arguments of both the parties on 1.12.2005 and fixed the matter for decision on 12.12.2005. But the petitioner has no hope to get justice at the hands of the presiding officer, i.e., learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Sawai Madhopur Shri G.D. Arya. As alleged by the applicant, learned R.A.A., Sawai Madhopur forced the advocate of the applicant to argue the matter immediately and in collusion with the non-applicants the presiding officer is bent upon to decide the appeal without giving proper opportunity to the petitioner. He further alleged that the advocate of the non-applicants before the learned R.A.A., Sawai Madhopur is the Chairman of the Municipal Board Sawai Madhopur and he is putting undue pressure on the presiding officer to decide the appeal in favour of the present non-applicants. It is also averred by the applicant that the non-applicant No. 1 is very close to the Minister Shri Kirodi Lal Meena and through the minister he is putting pressure on the learned presiding officer. All these facts have given reasonable apprehension in the mind of the applicant to submit the present transfer application before the Board of Revenue. 3. During the arguments learned advocate on behalf of the applicant argued that learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Sawai Madhopur has unwarranted nexus with the non-petitioners and no fair play is expected from learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Sawai Madhpur, Shri G.D. Arya. He supported his contention by saying that affidavit has been preferred and no counter-affidavit has been made by the non-petitioners; as such presumption should be taken that the allegations are correct. 4. He supported his contention by saying that affidavit has been preferred and no counter-affidavit has been made by the non-petitioners; as such presumption should be taken that the allegations are correct. 4. In reply, it was argued by learned advocate on behalf of the non-petitioners that the comments have been received and the arguments before the learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Sawai Madhopur have been heard and this is no stage of transfer of the case. He also brought before us photocopy of the letter dated 3.1.2006 by which comments to the Board of Revenue have been sent by the learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Sawai Madhopur, Shri G.D. Arya. 5. It is surprising as to how the copy of the letter of comments is available with the learned advocate on behalf of the non-petitioners. Learned Advocate has explained that this copy was brought to him by the non-petitioners. But this should have never reached to the non-applicants as no certified copy of this correspondence was received not it was permissible under the rules. 6. In normal circumstances I could have agreed that no transfer application should be entertained after arguments have been heard before the learned Revenue Appellate Authority but the availability of the photocopy of the letter written by learned R.A.A., Sawai Madhopur to the Board of Revenue with the non-petitioners indicates serious matter as to how it was possible for the non-petitioners to take the photocopy of the correspondence of which copy cannot be made available to the private party. This is a correspondence between the learned R.A.A. and the Board of Revenue and if the copy of that letter is available with the non-petitioners in that case this suspicion cannot be ruled out that there is an unwarranted nexus somewhere but I would not alleged that learned R.A.A., Sawai Madhopur should be directly responsible but somebody in the office may be responsible and if somebody in the office is responsible then the supervisory negligence of Revenue Appellate Authority, Sawai Madhopur is also presumable. I would not go beyond the issue of transfer of this case and would not like to take further cognizance unless any party prefers any application for any action against the learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Sawai Madhopur or his staff and at this stage I would only limit myself only to the extent of transfer of this case. 7. I would not go beyond the issue of transfer of this case and would not like to take further cognizance unless any party prefers any application for any action against the learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Sawai Madhopur or his staff and at this stage I would only limit myself only to the extent of transfer of this case. 7. In view of the discussions, the appeal titled as Gopal vs. Devi Singh pending before learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Sawai Madhopur is transferred to the court of learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Ajmer. I have taken the photocopy of the letter of learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Sawai Madhopur on this record. This petition is decided as above. Pronounced.