Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 366 (RAJ)

Mishri v. Board of Revenue for Rajasthan

2008-02-05

P.S.ASOPA

body2008
Honble ASOPA, J.—This writ petition has been filed against the order dated 5.7.1983 (Ex. 5) of the Board of Revenue whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed as not maintainable, against which a review petition was filed by the petitioner and that too was also dismissed vide order dated 10.11.1983 (Ex. 6). 2. Briefly stated, the relevant facts of the case are that a revision petition was filed before the Board of Revenue against the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority. Kota dated 29.10.1977 (Ex. 2) whereby the orders of the Assistant Collector, Sawai Madhopur dated 26.9.1977 (Ex. 1) and the order of the Naib Tehsildar, Gangapur City dated 23.8.1973 have been reversed. By the initial order dated 23.8.1973, the mutation was granted by the Naib Tehsildar in favour of the petitioner after inquiry, against which the respondents No. 2 to 7, Jai Lal, Badri, Moolya, Bhonria, Harphool and Meghchand respectively filed an appeal which was dismissed on 26.9.1977. Then against the order dated 26.9.1977, Jai Lal and other filed an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority which was allowed on 29.10.1977. Before the Board of Revenue, the respondents herein raised the preliminary objection that the revision petition was not maintainable as the certified copy of the order of Naib Tehsildar dated 23.8.1973 had not been attached with the memo of revision which is mandatory in terms of Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts Manual Part I. The Board of Revenue has considered some of the judgments and ultimately came to the conclusion that the judgments cited by the revision petitioner are distinguishable for the reason that in those cases permission was sought from the Court whereas in the present case, no such permission was sought. Therefore, the revision petition was dismissed. 3. The counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Raj Kapoor & Ors. vs. State (Delhi Administration) & Ors. reported in AIR 1980 SC 258 in which it has been held that the High Court could not refuse to entertain a revision petition on mere ground of non-filing of the certified copy of the subordinate authority, more particularly when the entire record is with the High Court. vs. State (Delhi Administration) & Ors. reported in AIR 1980 SC 258 in which it has been held that the High Court could not refuse to entertain a revision petition on mere ground of non-filing of the certified copy of the subordinate authority, more particularly when the entire record is with the High Court. The relevant paragraph No. 11 of the aforesaid judgment is as follows: "When the order, in original, is before you, to dismiss the petition for non-production of a copy of it is to bring the judicial process into peroration, and, if a copy were so sacred that the original were no substitute for it some time could have been granted for its production, which was not done. In law, as in life, a shortcut may prove a wrong cut, I disinter the cessation proceeding and direct it to be disposed of de novo by the High Court. The content of the power, so far as the present situation is concerned, is the same, be it under Section 397 or Section 482 of the Code." 4. The counsel for the respondents has argued that the Board has rightly passed the order that it is for the revision petitioner to file certified copy of the order of Naib Tehsildar or file an application for exemption, but no such step was taken, therefore, the Board has rightly rejected the revision petition as not maintainable. 5. I have gone through the record of the writ petition and further considered the rival submissions of the parties. 6. In my view, the courts are respected for deciding the cases on merit and not for dismissing the same on technical grounds. When the original record of the case was with the Board of Revenue, there appears to be no reason for dismissing the revision petition on the ground of non-filing of the certified copy of the order dated 23.8.1973 passed by the Naib Tehsildar. 7. Accordingly, the contention of Mr. Parag Rastogi is accepted and the contention of Ms. Gayatri Rathore is rejected. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the orders dated 5.7.1983 (Ex. 5) and 10.11.1983 (Ex. 6) are set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Board of Revenue for decision on merit within three month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.