Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 2410 (RAJ)

Roogha Ram v. Board of Revenue

2008-10-24

GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS

body2008
Hon'ble VYAS, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. In this case the petitioner is challenging the order passed by the Board of Revenue dated 15.10.2008 (Annex.6) whereby directly the Board of Revenue has entertained revision petition under section 230 read with section 221 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act against the order passed by the Assistant Collector cum Sub Divisional Officer, Pipar City, Jodhpur dated 5.9.2008. Learned counsel for the petitioners while inviting attention of this court towards section 230 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act submitted that no revision petition can be entertained against an interlocutory order. Revision petition can be entertained by the Board of Revenue against decided case where no appeal lies against the said decision of the subordinate revenue court. But, ignoring the provisions of section 230 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, directly the Revenue Board has entertained the revision petition and has passed interim order. Therefore, the same may be set aside because revision petition has wrongly been entertained by the Board of Revenue. 3. I have perused the order impugned. From a perusal of the cause title along with the order impugned it is evident that revision petition was filed under section 230 read with section 221 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. Section 221 of the Act is as follows : “221. Subordination of revenue courts.- The general superintendence and control over all revenue courts shall be vested in, and all such courts shall be subordinate to the Board; and subject to such superintendence, control and subordination-- (a) xxx xxx xxx (b) all Additional Collectors, Sub-Divisional Officers, Assistant Collectors and Tehsildars in a district shall be subordinate to the Collector thereof. (c) all Assistant Collectors, Tehsildars and Naib-Tehsildars in a sub-division shall be subordinate to the Sub-Divisional Officer thereof, and (d) all Additional Tehsildars and Naib-Tehsildars in a tehsil shall be subordinate to the Tehsildar thereof.” 4. Meaning thereby, all the subordinate revenue courts are under the general superintendence and control of the Revenue Board. Therefore, obviously, if any peculiar circumstance emerges from the facts, then it is open for the Revenue Board to exercise power under section 221 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is correct that revision petition under section 230 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act can be filed against the decision or where no appeal lies. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is correct that revision petition under section 230 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act can be filed against the decision or where no appeal lies. Therefore, there is now power with the Revenue Board to entertain the revision under section 230 of the Tenancy Act. But at the same time there is power left with the Board of Revenue under section 221 to have control over the subordinate revenue courts including the court of Assistant Collector cum Sub Divisional Officer, Pipar City, Jodhpur. 5. I have perused the order-sheets filed by the petitioner along with the writ petition passed by the Assistant Collector cum Sub Divisional Officer, Pipar City, Jodhpur upon the suit filed by the petitioners. The suit was filed before the said Assistant Collector, Pipar City on 25.8.2008. On that date notices were issued to the respondents but no interim order was passed. The next date was fixed as 30.8.2008. As per order-sheet dated 30.8.2008 it is evident that notices were not served upon the respondents. Similarly, on 5.9.2008 the following order was passed : “05.09.2008 odhy izkFkhZ mi-A vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls dksbZ gkftj ugha gS rFkk u gh uksfVl rkehy o vne rkfey izkIr gq,A odhy izkFkhZ ds uksfVl iq% is'k djs tks is'k gksus ij tkjh gksA odhy izkFkhZ dh ,d i{kh; cgl lquh x;h odhy izkFkhZ us viuh ,d i{kh; cgl us crk;k fd izkFkhZx.k dh lg[kkrsnkjh dh —f"k Hkwfe esa vizkFkhZx.k }kjk vkus tkus okys jkLrs esa n[ky vankth dj jgs gS] ftUgsa tfj;s varfje vLFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk ls ikcan fd;k tkosA odhy izkFkhZ dh ,d i{kh; cgl lquh x;h o euu fd;k x;k vr% izkFkhZx.k dh lg[kkrsnkjh Hkwfe esa vizkFkhZx.k izkFkhZx.k ds [kkrsnkjh Hkwfe esa vkus tkus okys jkLrs esa n[ky vankth u Lo;a djsa rFkk u vU; fdlh ls djokosA bl vk'k; dk vkxkeh is'kh rd dk varfje vLFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk ds uksfVl tkjh gksdj vizkFkhZx.k dks ikcan fd;k tkos tks uksfVl esa bldk bUnzkt dj uksfVl tkjh gksA ekSdk dfe'uj fjiksVZ izkIr ugha gqbZA bUrtkj gksA fnukad 17-10-2008 dks is'k gksA ,l-Mh- lgk;d dyDVj ,oa mi[k.M vf/kdkjh ihikM+ 'kgj] tks/kiqj** 6. Meaning thereby, the notices issued by the Assistant Collector to the respondents were not served. Even that while observing the fact that notices have not been served, the interim order was passed which is not proper. Meaning thereby, the notices issued by the Assistant Collector to the respondents were not served. Even that while observing the fact that notices have not been served, the interim order was passed which is not proper. In this view of the matter although there was no jurisdiction left with the Revenue Board to entertain Revision Petition under section 230 of the Act, still the Revenue Board can exercise its power under section 221 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act for general superintendence if any illegality comes to its knowledge. In this case the petition was filed by the respondents under sections 230 and 221 of the Tenancy Act. Therefore no error is committed by the learned Revenue Board in this matter. 7. In this view of the matter this writ petition is dismissed. 8. It is expected from the Revenue Board that revision petition may be decided expeditiously while issuing notices to all the parties.