Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 997 (RAJ)

Dhuda Ram v. State of Raj.

2006-03-27

R.N.ARVIND

body2006
Honble ARVIND, M.—This revision has been filed under Section 230 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 against the order dated 6.1.2006 passed by learned Asstt. Colonisation Commissioner, Bikaner. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that in a suit for declaration in respect of the land in question situated in village Barsalpur at present Chak No.22 M.G.M. comprised in Murabba No.202/34 measuring 25 bighas, 202/35 measuring 25 bighas, 202/42 measuring 25 bighas and 202/43 measuring 25 bighas, the petitioner filed an application udner Section 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act paying for the grant of temporary injunction. This application was allowed and an order of status quo of possession was passed by the Asstt. Colonisation Commissioner, Bikaner vide his order dated 10.8.2005. The notice was issued to the defendant/non-petitioner and the case was adjourned for 9.9.2005. On 9.9.2005, the non-petitioner appeared but he did not file the reply and consequently the case was adjourned to 7.10.2005, 28.10.2005, 18.11.2005, 25.11.2005, 2.12.2005, 16.12.2005. On all these dates, the respondent did not file the reply of the application. On 6.1.2006, the trial Court vacated the order of temporary injunction on the ground that the non-petitioner has not produced any evidence. Aggrieved against the order dated 6.1.2006, the petitioner submitted the present revision along with application under Section 212 Tenancy Act and read with Order 39 Rule 1 CPC before the Board of Revenue. 3. Arguing in support of the petitioner, the contention of the learned advocate on behalf of the petitioner is that the stay order was granted to the petitioner Dhudaram on 10.8.2005 and this was matter adjourned upto 16.12.2005 and on 6.1.2006 the following order was passed:— ^^i=koyh isk gqbZA mHk;i{k mifLFkrA vizkFkhZ dh vksjls vkSj lcwr isk ugha gq, gSa vr% iwoZ tkjh LFkxu vknsk dh vof/k lekIr dh tkrh gS vFkkZr~ vc LFkxu vknsk izHkkokhy ugha gSa i=koyh vk;Unk fnukad 10-2-2006 dks okLrs tokc LVsV isk gksA He further argued that from this order it is evident that the lapse was on the part of Tehsildar but instead of making any order against Tehsildar, stay order of the petitioner was vacated for no fault of him. As such the order of learned Asstt. Colonisation Commissioner dated 6.1.2006 needs to be set aside, it is unjust, improper and incorrect. 4. Arguing against the petition, the contention of the learned Dy. Govt. As such the order of learned Asstt. Colonisation Commissioner dated 6.1.2006 needs to be set aside, it is unjust, improper and incorrect. 4. Arguing against the petition, the contention of the learned Dy. Govt. Advocate Shri S.K. Sharma is that the matter in which the order dated 6.1.2006 has been passed, has not been finalised and the application of the petitioner is not maintainable against an interim order. he also argued that the petitioners have alternate remedy available with them to approach the learned Asstt. Colonisation Commissioner and as such they have wrongly approached the Board of Revenue, their petition needs to be dismissed. 5. Having heard the learned advocates and having perused the petition and having considered the arguments, I am of the opinion that the mistake committed by the learned Asstt. Colonisation Commissioner is of unusual nature and it reveals that the petitioner has suffered for no fault of him and as such this Bench cannot close its eyes on such a lapse which advertently or inadvertently occurred at the level of learned Asstt. Colonisation Commissioner. For securing ends of justice, interpretation of law has to be made keeping in view the circumstances of the case so that on one is harassed for which he is not responsible. It is, therefore, necessary to invoke inherent powers of this Court provided under Section 221 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and it would be appropriate in the interest of justice to order as follows:— (i) That the matter pending with the learned Asstt. Colonisation Commissioner, Bikaner will be decided within a period of six months from today. (2) Till the matter remains pending with learned Asstt. Colonisation Commisioner, Bikaner stay order granted in favour of the petitioners on 10.8.2005 will continue till the disposal of the matter. Revision is the right of the Court and this matter can be disposed of at this stage without calling for record because the nature of the matter is such that it would be unnecessary to prolong this without any sufficient reason. Hence, revision petition is accepted and decided with the directions given above. Pronounced.